Search
Unsheltered
7.0
Rate It
Book
(via goodreads.com) The New York Times bestselling author of Flight Behavior, The Lacuna, and The...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Courier (2020) in Movies
Aug 16, 2021
Cumberbatch is brilliant. (1 more)
Great real life history lesson
A peerless Cumberbatch and a miscast Buckley.
It's not to be confused with the Olga Kurylenko / Gary Oldman 2019 movie of the same title. But with a fresh Berlin current-day Russian spy scandal in the news this week, seeing the cold war spy drama "The Courier" is a timely thing to do.
Positives:
- Benedict Cumberbatch is outstandingly good in this. He could have been born to play the slightly bemused English gentlemen of the time. All golf, tweed suits and gentlemen's clubs. No spoilers, but there is a physical transformation as well that's impressive to observe. The film would have been decidedly so-so I think without that core central performance.
- The film is based on a true story. As someone who was born in 1961, it's a good reminder to count our blessings that you, me and everyone else are still around to live our lives at all. The world was on the brink of a precipice and learning the story of Wynne's part in this was insightful history.
- There's a nice catchy Russian-themed score by Abel Korzeniowski.
Negatives:
- I'm a big fan of Jessie Buckley. Really, I am. And to be fair to her, her performance is really good. I particularly liked a scene where she dismissed on the doorstep a local busybody. But I just didn't see her as Wynne's pearl-neckless-wearing wife in this part. Perhaps the problem is that although there's a 13 year age gap between the leads, I always imagine Buckley as being much younger that her 31 years. For whatever reason, the casting didn't work for me.
Summary Thoughts on "The Courier": As a true-life spy story, the movie is interesting and Cumberbatch's performance is brilliant. But I can't say that I was 100% grabbed by it. While having a few moments of high drama and tension - particularly one on a plane - I never felt that to be maintained for enough of the movie. Director Dominic Cooke has a limited filmography (with the Saoirse Ronan movie "On Chesil Beach" being his only other feature) and writer Tom O'Connor is the guy behind the more flippant "Hitman's Bodyguard" films. Perhaps a more experienced writer/director team would have elevated this to a higher level.
So it's eminently watchable but not memorable. Just a marginal hit in my book.
(For the full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- Benedict Cumberbatch is outstandingly good in this. He could have been born to play the slightly bemused English gentlemen of the time. All golf, tweed suits and gentlemen's clubs. No spoilers, but there is a physical transformation as well that's impressive to observe. The film would have been decidedly so-so I think without that core central performance.
- The film is based on a true story. As someone who was born in 1961, it's a good reminder to count our blessings that you, me and everyone else are still around to live our lives at all. The world was on the brink of a precipice and learning the story of Wynne's part in this was insightful history.
- There's a nice catchy Russian-themed score by Abel Korzeniowski.
Negatives:
- I'm a big fan of Jessie Buckley. Really, I am. And to be fair to her, her performance is really good. I particularly liked a scene where she dismissed on the doorstep a local busybody. But I just didn't see her as Wynne's pearl-neckless-wearing wife in this part. Perhaps the problem is that although there's a 13 year age gap between the leads, I always imagine Buckley as being much younger that her 31 years. For whatever reason, the casting didn't work for me.
Summary Thoughts on "The Courier": As a true-life spy story, the movie is interesting and Cumberbatch's performance is brilliant. But I can't say that I was 100% grabbed by it. While having a few moments of high drama and tension - particularly one on a plane - I never felt that to be maintained for enough of the movie. Director Dominic Cooke has a limited filmography (with the Saoirse Ronan movie "On Chesil Beach" being his only other feature) and writer Tom O'Connor is the guy behind the more flippant "Hitman's Bodyguard" films. Perhaps a more experienced writer/director team would have elevated this to a higher level.
So it's eminently watchable but not memorable. Just a marginal hit in my book.
(For the full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
One August Night
Book
'Excellent as ever. Victoria Hislop at her best.' Reader review 'Within a few pages I was back in...
Pope Francis: Untying the Knots: The Struggle for the Soul of Catholicism
Book
For the past two years Pope Francis has enchanted and bewildered the world in equal measure with his...
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated I'd Give Anything in Books
Jun 11, 2020
At eighteen, Ginny "Zinny" Beale is a lighthearted, fun, brave girl with a close group of friends and brother with whom she can unite against their uptight mother. But one night changes all of that. Someone sets the town's high school on fire and in the aftermath, the father of Ginny's best friend, Gray, is dead. The townspeople look for someone to blame--leaving most of it on a troubled teen--but Ginny learns some news that changes her entire world. She tells no one, but the secret alters her life and leaves her an outcast among her friends and family. Over the next twenty years, Ginny transitions, settling down, returning to her hometown and marrying Harris, a professor. They have a daughter, Avery, and Ginny cares for her mother, who is dying. But when scandal rocks the town again--this time focused on Harris--Ginny has to make some choices. It's time to confront the past and the secret she's kept buried all this time.
"In one night, one night, I lost all of them."
I adore Marisa de los Santos and her writing, though this wasn't my favorite of her books. Still, she's just so good at capturing the little moments in life: nailing down the feelings and emotions of her characters. Ginny, Avery, and others spring to life in this one. The story swings between past and present, with older excerpts often told from Ginny's diary entries. It takes a while to learn Ginny's big secret, which is a bit of a pet peeve of mine: I'm not always a fan of dragging out a secret.
This is a poignant and sad read, delving into marriage, love, and parenthood. My favorite character was fifteen-year-old Avery, who is hit hard by the incident involving her father, Harris. In many ways, I was far more invested in Avery's growth than Ginny's--I liked Ginny, but I couldn't quite find myself fully wanting to root for her. Although the juxtaposition between young Zinny and present-day Ginny was quite well-done.
Did you stop being your old selves? Did they fall away? Were you always only the self you were in the present?
The book explores how one secret can so change a person and the ripple effect it has on many lives. Ms. de los Santos examines her characters very closely via her writing, and I will always love picking up her books and getting an intimate look at her cast of players. In the end, this is a touching and well-written novel, even if I couldn't always find myself fully engaged in Ginny's world. 3.75 stars, rounded to 4 here.
"In one night, one night, I lost all of them."
I adore Marisa de los Santos and her writing, though this wasn't my favorite of her books. Still, she's just so good at capturing the little moments in life: nailing down the feelings and emotions of her characters. Ginny, Avery, and others spring to life in this one. The story swings between past and present, with older excerpts often told from Ginny's diary entries. It takes a while to learn Ginny's big secret, which is a bit of a pet peeve of mine: I'm not always a fan of dragging out a secret.
This is a poignant and sad read, delving into marriage, love, and parenthood. My favorite character was fifteen-year-old Avery, who is hit hard by the incident involving her father, Harris. In many ways, I was far more invested in Avery's growth than Ginny's--I liked Ginny, but I couldn't quite find myself fully wanting to root for her. Although the juxtaposition between young Zinny and present-day Ginny was quite well-done.
Did you stop being your old selves? Did they fall away? Were you always only the self you were in the present?
The book explores how one secret can so change a person and the ripple effect it has on many lives. Ms. de los Santos examines her characters very closely via her writing, and I will always love picking up her books and getting an intimate look at her cast of players. In the end, this is a touching and well-written novel, even if I couldn't always find myself fully engaged in Ginny's world. 3.75 stars, rounded to 4 here.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Bombshell (2019) in Movies
Jan 8, 2020 (Updated Jan 8, 2020)
With media currently showing us scenes of disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein as he shuffles into court, expecting sympathy while his victims continue to try and rebuild their lives, along comes the timely release of Bombshell. Based on a high profile #MeToo scandal, Bombshell gives us a look deep inside the heart of Fox News, and tells the explosive story of the women who fought back against the powerful man who created it.
Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) begins by giving us a whistle-stop tour of the Fox News building - the floor layout, who is located where, how various news teams operate, who some of the news anchors are. We learn about the second floor, where the man at the centre of the scandal to come, Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), has his office and where Rupert Murdoch and his sons all fit in. It's a lot to take in right off the bat, so don't turn up late for the movie and make sure you're paying attention!
It's 2016, and the presidential campaign is in full swing. Megyn is preparing for the Republican debate hosted by Fox News, where she is planning to fire off a controversial question at Donald Trump regarding his treatment of women. There's a bit of an upset (literally) earlier in the day though, when Megyn develops a nasty stomach bug, presumably from someone tampering with the coffee bought for her on the way to work, and she very nearly doesn't make it to the debate, which we assume was the desired result. She manages to get out her question though, resulting in the kind of rage tweeting from Trump that we've now become so accustomed to, backlash from Trump supporters and paparazzi turning up at the holiday home where Megyn is taking a short break with her family.
Meanwhile, Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is meeting with lawyers regarding the sexist comments that she regularly receives both on air from her male co-anchors, and off air from people like Roger Ailes. She also feels that her demotion to a less popular daytime show is the result of her reluctance to 'play ball' with Ailes. We see the uncomfortable story of Rudi Bakhitar, fired for politely declining the sexual advances of her employer, and the lawyers advise that Gretchen will need to gain further evidence from other women before they can file a harassment suit against Ailes.
The harassment and treatment of women and what they have to endure at Fox News, just to try and come close to the same level as their male counterparts, becomes increasingly apparent as the movie progresses. Short dresses, wide angle shots and transparent news desks in order to see their legs and hold viewer attention - it's the kind of thing you might only casually notice while watching a show, but eye opening and shocking when you see the orders being given in the control room to switch to a certain camera, and the women being told off screen how they should look and dress. Even though you know it's only a matter of time before Carlson gets the support she needs in order to get justice, there's obviously a lot of tension and drama that needs to play out before we get there.
In order to highlight and demonstrate the treatment off camera, particularly from Roger Ailes, we are introduced to up-and-coming journalist and new employee Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie), who is a fictional character. Kayla beings by working for Gretchen Carlson, but is keen to progress to bigger things and, despite warnings from Gretchen that she should stay close to her, takes a job on Fox's number one program, The O'Reilly Factor. Along the way, Kayla forms a relationship with her co-worker Jess Carr (Kate McKinnon) and manages to find her way into the office of Ailes, where we get to see him at work in a very creepy and uncomfortable scene. As news of Gretchen's lawsuit breaks, a slow trickle of former victims begins to come forward, while Megyn remains noticeably tight-lipped about an encounter she had with Ailes 10 years ago. It's clear that somebody like Megyn has enough power to make the lawsuit a lot more viable.
For me, Bombshell is all about the performances. Charlize Theron wears simple prosthetics, and underwent voice coaching in order to play the role of Megyn Kelly convincingly, and she is outstanding, as is Nicole Kidman. We get to live the trauma and the ups and downs of Margot Robbie's character along with her in the movie, earning her a supporting actress BAFTA nomination this week (against herself, for Once Upon A Time In Hollywood!). John Lithgow, who I found to be brilliant as Winston Churchill in The Crown, has once again bulked up in order to portray Roger Ailes, and succeeds in making him seem human, and at times humorous, while still portraying his darker, weaker and more creepier side.
Outside of the performances, I found Bombshell to be a fairly average movie. What happened in the space of just a few days in real life, seems to occur over weeks in the movie and I felt the trailer covered off the majority of the story in a pretty tight and more intense few minutes, with the movie just a more stretched out version of that. Still, Bombshell is definitely a good movie and, as I mentioned right at the start, more important and relevant now than ever before, so it deserves to be seen by all.
Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) begins by giving us a whistle-stop tour of the Fox News building - the floor layout, who is located where, how various news teams operate, who some of the news anchors are. We learn about the second floor, where the man at the centre of the scandal to come, Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), has his office and where Rupert Murdoch and his sons all fit in. It's a lot to take in right off the bat, so don't turn up late for the movie and make sure you're paying attention!
It's 2016, and the presidential campaign is in full swing. Megyn is preparing for the Republican debate hosted by Fox News, where she is planning to fire off a controversial question at Donald Trump regarding his treatment of women. There's a bit of an upset (literally) earlier in the day though, when Megyn develops a nasty stomach bug, presumably from someone tampering with the coffee bought for her on the way to work, and she very nearly doesn't make it to the debate, which we assume was the desired result. She manages to get out her question though, resulting in the kind of rage tweeting from Trump that we've now become so accustomed to, backlash from Trump supporters and paparazzi turning up at the holiday home where Megyn is taking a short break with her family.
Meanwhile, Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is meeting with lawyers regarding the sexist comments that she regularly receives both on air from her male co-anchors, and off air from people like Roger Ailes. She also feels that her demotion to a less popular daytime show is the result of her reluctance to 'play ball' with Ailes. We see the uncomfortable story of Rudi Bakhitar, fired for politely declining the sexual advances of her employer, and the lawyers advise that Gretchen will need to gain further evidence from other women before they can file a harassment suit against Ailes.
The harassment and treatment of women and what they have to endure at Fox News, just to try and come close to the same level as their male counterparts, becomes increasingly apparent as the movie progresses. Short dresses, wide angle shots and transparent news desks in order to see their legs and hold viewer attention - it's the kind of thing you might only casually notice while watching a show, but eye opening and shocking when you see the orders being given in the control room to switch to a certain camera, and the women being told off screen how they should look and dress. Even though you know it's only a matter of time before Carlson gets the support she needs in order to get justice, there's obviously a lot of tension and drama that needs to play out before we get there.
In order to highlight and demonstrate the treatment off camera, particularly from Roger Ailes, we are introduced to up-and-coming journalist and new employee Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie), who is a fictional character. Kayla beings by working for Gretchen Carlson, but is keen to progress to bigger things and, despite warnings from Gretchen that she should stay close to her, takes a job on Fox's number one program, The O'Reilly Factor. Along the way, Kayla forms a relationship with her co-worker Jess Carr (Kate McKinnon) and manages to find her way into the office of Ailes, where we get to see him at work in a very creepy and uncomfortable scene. As news of Gretchen's lawsuit breaks, a slow trickle of former victims begins to come forward, while Megyn remains noticeably tight-lipped about an encounter she had with Ailes 10 years ago. It's clear that somebody like Megyn has enough power to make the lawsuit a lot more viable.
For me, Bombshell is all about the performances. Charlize Theron wears simple prosthetics, and underwent voice coaching in order to play the role of Megyn Kelly convincingly, and she is outstanding, as is Nicole Kidman. We get to live the trauma and the ups and downs of Margot Robbie's character along with her in the movie, earning her a supporting actress BAFTA nomination this week (against herself, for Once Upon A Time In Hollywood!). John Lithgow, who I found to be brilliant as Winston Churchill in The Crown, has once again bulked up in order to portray Roger Ailes, and succeeds in making him seem human, and at times humorous, while still portraying his darker, weaker and more creepier side.
Outside of the performances, I found Bombshell to be a fairly average movie. What happened in the space of just a few days in real life, seems to occur over weeks in the movie and I felt the trailer covered off the majority of the story in a pretty tight and more intense few minutes, with the movie just a more stretched out version of that. Still, Bombshell is definitely a good movie and, as I mentioned right at the start, more important and relevant now than ever before, so it deserves to be seen by all.
AmyBee (4 KP) rated We Need to Talk About Kevin in Books
Sep 5, 2018
WARNING - SPOILERS AHEAD!!! ALSO, THIS REVIEW IS STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION SO IF PARTS DON'T MAKE SENSE, WORRY NOT, I'LL BE BACK TO FINISH IT LATER!
I quite liked this psychological family/crime drama although I did think it dragged on quite a bit with a LOT of unnecessary information. I understand that we are meant to be inside Eva's head, experiencing and feeling everything that she does/did but there is still a hell of a lot in there that could easily have been omitted with no harm to the rest of the story. On the other hand, this approach helps if we want to read the story like a 'stream of consciousness' style of narrative.
That said, it was still enjoyable if a little tedious at times due to my above point and I absolutely was not prepared for the ending!
Several people asked on Quora whether the younger sister harmed herself with the cleaning fluid on purpose, which made it very clear to me that some readers have fundamentally misunderstood the entire story, and this makes me wonder if they have a different view altogether on the ending - who do they see as being responsible for the murders? Kevin? Kevin's mother? Or, a combination of the actions of each character and toxic social/familial environments which ignored and subsequently exacerbated the poor mental health of several characters, encouraged cycles of abuse, revenge and retaliation. My guess is that they entirely and wrongly blame Kevin.
Shriver has written this novel very cleverly, as when we think about each character's transgressions out of context, we all know what is wrong and who is responsible; however this is written in such a way that it encourages the reader to pick a character to blame, providing arguments for and against each one along the way. In real life, this would never happen, as we do not get this kind of depth of insight into the lives of mass murderers. We simply blame the killer first and foremost, maybe looking briefly in disdain at his neglectful family.
In this novel, it isn't as easy to simply blame Kevin. He may be the killer, but there are so many more mitigating factors to consider.
His mother's narcissism makes her unable to see or accept her role in the actions of her very sick son. She sees him as "bad" and that's just not true. Even worse is that she treats him as though he is just bad rather than extremely ill.
I do wonder also, if the author got any backlash for writing this on the back of all the school shootings there has been in the US since the 1990's? Did people think this was an opportunistic move in the same way that they lambasted Emma whats-her-name for writing ROOM after the Josef Fritzl scandal?
I quite liked this psychological family/crime drama although I did think it dragged on quite a bit with a LOT of unnecessary information. I understand that we are meant to be inside Eva's head, experiencing and feeling everything that she does/did but there is still a hell of a lot in there that could easily have been omitted with no harm to the rest of the story. On the other hand, this approach helps if we want to read the story like a 'stream of consciousness' style of narrative.
That said, it was still enjoyable if a little tedious at times due to my above point and I absolutely was not prepared for the ending!
Several people asked on Quora whether the younger sister harmed herself with the cleaning fluid on purpose, which made it very clear to me that some readers have fundamentally misunderstood the entire story, and this makes me wonder if they have a different view altogether on the ending - who do they see as being responsible for the murders? Kevin? Kevin's mother? Or, a combination of the actions of each character and toxic social/familial environments which ignored and subsequently exacerbated the poor mental health of several characters, encouraged cycles of abuse, revenge and retaliation. My guess is that they entirely and wrongly blame Kevin.
Shriver has written this novel very cleverly, as when we think about each character's transgressions out of context, we all know what is wrong and who is responsible; however this is written in such a way that it encourages the reader to pick a character to blame, providing arguments for and against each one along the way. In real life, this would never happen, as we do not get this kind of depth of insight into the lives of mass murderers. We simply blame the killer first and foremost, maybe looking briefly in disdain at his neglectful family.
In this novel, it isn't as easy to simply blame Kevin. He may be the killer, but there are so many more mitigating factors to consider.
His mother's narcissism makes her unable to see or accept her role in the actions of her very sick son. She sees him as "bad" and that's just not true. Even worse is that she treats him as though he is just bad rather than extremely ill.
I do wonder also, if the author got any backlash for writing this on the back of all the school shootings there has been in the US since the 1990's? Did people think this was an opportunistic move in the same way that they lambasted Emma whats-her-name for writing ROOM after the Josef Fritzl scandal?
Margaret Thatcher: The Authorized Biography, Volume Two: Everything She Wants: Volume two
Book
The sensational second volume of Charles Moore's bestselling authorized biography of the Iron Lady...
Margaret Thatcher: Volume Two: The Authorized Biography : Everything She Wants
Book
The sensational second volume of Charles Moore's bestselling authorized biography of the Iron Lady...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Laundromat (2019) in Movies
May 18, 2021
Is this the dullest movie title in film history?
In "The Laundromat", Ellen Martin (Meryl Streep) loses her husband Joe (James Cromwell) in a boating accident. She expects a multi-million dollar insurance payout, but is frustrated that the insurance companies evaporate in a miasma of shell-companies and double-dealing. Her compulsive investigations lead her to two Panamanian-based double dealers: Jürgen Mossack (Gary Oldman) and Ramón Fonseca (Antonio Banderas).
Based on a true story, a hack of the company's 2.6 TB of email data led to the 2016 scandal known as "The Panama Papers": something that dragged into the headlines the alleged dodgy-dealings of many celebrities including David Cameron.
Positives:
- Meryl Steep delivers another superb performance as the grieving avenging widow.
- There's a "twist" in the final scene which I didn't see coming, and which was impressive.
Negatives:
- This is a really strange and disjointed movie. It seems to be trying to be "The Big Short", but is a significant fail. There are numerous quirky scenes, most involving Oldman and Banderas. But there is enough bat-shit crazy stuff in here to make you think that either Sonderbergh, or the writers, or both were on acid. What was with the "Dawn of Man" sequence at the start? And why the anonymisation of the 'hominids'? Lots of bonkers stuff.
- The movie is made up of a series of chapters ("Lessons"), but the connection between the lesson title and the "message" conveyed is loose at best. It's all a bit of a convoluted mess.
- The script seems to assume a school-boy level of knowledge of the subject matter. As a result, some of the explanations of Mssrs, Oldman and Banderas come across as extremely patronising 'mansplaining'.
Summary Thoughts on "The Laundromat": There's a stellar cast involved with this one, and the subject matter in the hands of an Adam McKay could have been compelling. But as it is, it's rather a disjointed mess. It's worth a watch just to see the actors at work. But that's about the long and the short of it. Watch "The Big Short" again instead.
This has been sitting on my Netflix box for a long time without a watch, and this is mostly because the title suggested something completely different (and not of great interest). (Yes, I understand in retrospect that the movie is partially concerned with money laundering!) It was only my wife suggesting we watch it that pushed it onto the list. If it had been titled something like "The Panama Papers" I would have probably watched it sooner!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/18/the-laundromat-is-this-the-worst-title-of-any-movie-in-film-history/. Thanks.)
Based on a true story, a hack of the company's 2.6 TB of email data led to the 2016 scandal known as "The Panama Papers": something that dragged into the headlines the alleged dodgy-dealings of many celebrities including David Cameron.
Positives:
- Meryl Steep delivers another superb performance as the grieving avenging widow.
- There's a "twist" in the final scene which I didn't see coming, and which was impressive.
Negatives:
- This is a really strange and disjointed movie. It seems to be trying to be "The Big Short", but is a significant fail. There are numerous quirky scenes, most involving Oldman and Banderas. But there is enough bat-shit crazy stuff in here to make you think that either Sonderbergh, or the writers, or both were on acid. What was with the "Dawn of Man" sequence at the start? And why the anonymisation of the 'hominids'? Lots of bonkers stuff.
- The movie is made up of a series of chapters ("Lessons"), but the connection between the lesson title and the "message" conveyed is loose at best. It's all a bit of a convoluted mess.
- The script seems to assume a school-boy level of knowledge of the subject matter. As a result, some of the explanations of Mssrs, Oldman and Banderas come across as extremely patronising 'mansplaining'.
Summary Thoughts on "The Laundromat": There's a stellar cast involved with this one, and the subject matter in the hands of an Adam McKay could have been compelling. But as it is, it's rather a disjointed mess. It's worth a watch just to see the actors at work. But that's about the long and the short of it. Watch "The Big Short" again instead.
This has been sitting on my Netflix box for a long time without a watch, and this is mostly because the title suggested something completely different (and not of great interest). (Yes, I understand in retrospect that the movie is partially concerned with money laundering!) It was only my wife suggesting we watch it that pushed it onto the list. If it had been titled something like "The Panama Papers" I would have probably watched it sooner!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/18/the-laundromat-is-this-the-worst-title-of-any-movie-in-film-history/. Thanks.)
