Search
Search results
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated What If... in Books
Jan 10, 2020
Honest Review for Free Copy of Book
What If… by Corrina Joy is one woman’s story as she explores her ‘what if..’. A word of warning though, this book is full of both happiness and heartbreak. Depending on the reader’s current emotional state and lifestyle this book could be very depressing or uplifting.
Joy Chambers feels like there is something missing in her life. Her husband is a hardworking man but puts money and sports above caring about her. He doesn't pay attention to her or her needs and lets her take care of the house and children alone. The crushing loneliness of her marriage mixed with her longing to feel true love and joy again propels her to take a half-hour break at the beach. This is so that she can emotionally let go before returning to her daily chores. A random wave knocks her into the water where she hits her head and comes across her “magical little relic”.
Upon twisting this relic Joy gets transported to a different dimension where her life is significantly different. There is one common theme in each dimension that she visits, Jerry. Unconditionally but was unable to be with him in her original dimension. For some reason on another each one of Joy’s visits is cut short and so is her time with Jerry. How Joy’s story ends is completely up to the reader thanks to two very clever options for endings by the author. Both of the endings are extremely different but as the book says “Her destiny is in your hands...”
What I liked best was all the different dimensions that Joy visited while trying to find what was missing from her life. I did notice one thing that may or may not have been true. It seemed to me that each ‘dimension’ was really just a different time period in the same dimension or the world. As if Joy only changed dimension once and visited important points in that dimension. What I did not like was in the first chapter Joy explains her life to the reader. She talks of just existing, not living, and an unnamed husband who does not seem to care for her or emotionally support her, and their children. After she finds her magical little relic they are not mentioned again. I can not help but wonder about Joy’s feelings about leaving them behind, especially her kids. What becomes of them?
This book is directed more towards adults. Specifically, those who find themselves wondering what their lives might be like if they had done things differently. At the same time, this book is just as enjoyable for everyone else. I rate this book 4 out of 4. This book was beautiful. Over its 188 pages, Joy finds what element in her life she needs in order to feel whole. The final twelve pages or so consist of two alternate endings (an amazing and unusual concept) so the reader can decide exactly how Joy’s life turns out.
https://www.facebook.com/nightreaderreviews
Joy Chambers feels like there is something missing in her life. Her husband is a hardworking man but puts money and sports above caring about her. He doesn't pay attention to her or her needs and lets her take care of the house and children alone. The crushing loneliness of her marriage mixed with her longing to feel true love and joy again propels her to take a half-hour break at the beach. This is so that she can emotionally let go before returning to her daily chores. A random wave knocks her into the water where she hits her head and comes across her “magical little relic”.
Upon twisting this relic Joy gets transported to a different dimension where her life is significantly different. There is one common theme in each dimension that she visits, Jerry. Unconditionally but was unable to be with him in her original dimension. For some reason on another each one of Joy’s visits is cut short and so is her time with Jerry. How Joy’s story ends is completely up to the reader thanks to two very clever options for endings by the author. Both of the endings are extremely different but as the book says “Her destiny is in your hands...”
What I liked best was all the different dimensions that Joy visited while trying to find what was missing from her life. I did notice one thing that may or may not have been true. It seemed to me that each ‘dimension’ was really just a different time period in the same dimension or the world. As if Joy only changed dimension once and visited important points in that dimension. What I did not like was in the first chapter Joy explains her life to the reader. She talks of just existing, not living, and an unnamed husband who does not seem to care for her or emotionally support her, and their children. After she finds her magical little relic they are not mentioned again. I can not help but wonder about Joy’s feelings about leaving them behind, especially her kids. What becomes of them?
This book is directed more towards adults. Specifically, those who find themselves wondering what their lives might be like if they had done things differently. At the same time, this book is just as enjoyable for everyone else. I rate this book 4 out of 4. This book was beautiful. Over its 188 pages, Joy finds what element in her life she needs in order to feel whole. The final twelve pages or so consist of two alternate endings (an amazing and unusual concept) so the reader can decide exactly how Joy’s life turns out.
https://www.facebook.com/nightreaderreviews
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Frankenweenie (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Before he hit the big time, director Tim Burton made a live-action short film named “Frankenweenie” which was a loving tribute to the classic horror films of old, in particular “Frankenstein”. Due to various issues, the 30-minute film never got the attention it deserved and was relegated to a video release after Burton’s stock had risen thanks to hits such as “Beetlejuice”, “Batman”, and “Edward Scissorhands”.
Disney has given Burton a chance to complete his vision for “Frankenweenie”, and Burton has done so by combining the visual themes of classic black and white with modern 3D and stop-motion animation.
The film centers around the town of New Holland, where young Victor Frankenstein (Charlie Tahan) lives in suburbia and spends his days, when not in school, on his love of science, and his beloved dog Sparky. His father, wants Victor to diversify his skills and agrees to allow Victor to take part in a local science fair if he agrees to play baseball as well. Victor agrees, but sadly tragedy strikes when Victor loses his beloved Sparky in an accident.
Devastated, Victor loses his will and his way until he is inspired by his science teacher, Mr. Rzykruski (Martin Landau) who explains how anything can be reanimated via electricity. Since their town is famous for its nightly lightening storms, Victor sets about to revive Sparky, and is able to do so much to his delight. While he is thrilled to have his beloved dog back, Victor must keep Sparky’s return a secret which proves to be a very difficult challenge.
In time, the secret gets out and chaos ensues, especially when Victor’s classmates decide to reanimate other dead objects so that they can compete at the science fair. Things quickly go amok, and Victor and Sparky must find a way to save New Holland and each other.
The film has the trademark Burton visuals which are indeed very lavish. The nature of stop-motion and 3D does at times have some jerkiness to the film, but all in all it is a rich visual experience. I am a fan of Burton, but I have always said he far to often puts substance over style as his visuals have often overshadowed plot and characters in his movies. This time out, Burton has kept the film basic and does not go overboard trying to over-complicate his plot and characters. The film is, at the core, a story about a boy and his dog and their enduring love for one another.
The film is loaded with quirky characters and visuals and several references to the classic horror films of old which inspired it. I was not sure that many of the younger viewers in the audience would be able to get several of the jokes in the film, but they, along with their parents, laughed and cheered throughout the film.
While it will not break any new ground in visuals and story, “Frankenweenie” is a pleasantly fun film that the family will enjoy and is well worth checking out.
Disney has given Burton a chance to complete his vision for “Frankenweenie”, and Burton has done so by combining the visual themes of classic black and white with modern 3D and stop-motion animation.
The film centers around the town of New Holland, where young Victor Frankenstein (Charlie Tahan) lives in suburbia and spends his days, when not in school, on his love of science, and his beloved dog Sparky. His father, wants Victor to diversify his skills and agrees to allow Victor to take part in a local science fair if he agrees to play baseball as well. Victor agrees, but sadly tragedy strikes when Victor loses his beloved Sparky in an accident.
Devastated, Victor loses his will and his way until he is inspired by his science teacher, Mr. Rzykruski (Martin Landau) who explains how anything can be reanimated via electricity. Since their town is famous for its nightly lightening storms, Victor sets about to revive Sparky, and is able to do so much to his delight. While he is thrilled to have his beloved dog back, Victor must keep Sparky’s return a secret which proves to be a very difficult challenge.
In time, the secret gets out and chaos ensues, especially when Victor’s classmates decide to reanimate other dead objects so that they can compete at the science fair. Things quickly go amok, and Victor and Sparky must find a way to save New Holland and each other.
The film has the trademark Burton visuals which are indeed very lavish. The nature of stop-motion and 3D does at times have some jerkiness to the film, but all in all it is a rich visual experience. I am a fan of Burton, but I have always said he far to often puts substance over style as his visuals have often overshadowed plot and characters in his movies. This time out, Burton has kept the film basic and does not go overboard trying to over-complicate his plot and characters. The film is, at the core, a story about a boy and his dog and their enduring love for one another.
The film is loaded with quirky characters and visuals and several references to the classic horror films of old which inspired it. I was not sure that many of the younger viewers in the audience would be able to get several of the jokes in the film, but they, along with their parents, laughed and cheered throughout the film.
While it will not break any new ground in visuals and story, “Frankenweenie” is a pleasantly fun film that the family will enjoy and is well worth checking out.
Nighty Night! - The bedtime story app for children
Book and Education
App
The most popular bedtime story on the App Store! Over 4 million downloads. „App of Year“...
Nighty Night! - The bedtime story app
Book and Education
App
The most popular bedtime story on the App Store! Over 4 million downloads. „App of Year“...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Mrs Lowry & Son (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
I seriously considered not reviewing this film, I knew that it probably wouldn't be something I'd ever watch again but I was hoping that with Timothy Spall and Vanessa Redgrave at the helm it would be a pleasant thing to watch.
Lowry's life revolves around his mother, he cooks for her and keeps her company, but nothing he does seems to be good enough. Her life isn't what she'd like at all, her husband left them with debts and they're living in a neighbourhood that's beneath her and she's clinging to the things that are "better" in the world. He son's hobby of painting isn't to her liking especially after a critic pans a piece he submits. Lowry has one thing to cling to in life but his mother is a fickle person and it may be that nothing is ever enough to her.
The majority of the film is made up of scenes around Lowry and his mother, even at only 1 hour 31 minutes that's a lot of time with limited cast. Both leads are impressive actors and there's no denying that you can see it in this movie but there's something lacking. The story wasn't going to be an overly exciting one and was going to rely on its dramatic performances to keep your interest, everything was "nearly but not quite". You expect some moving moments and at several points you think "oh it's coming now" but it always seems to peter off before the pay-off.
That's not to say that the acting isn't good, it is, but all the scenes were just moments short of something special. Spall does get a few opportunities that get you choked up for him, but as I say, there was opportunity for much more.
It's an intriguing story of the way love for family can dictate the way your life goes. The dynamic between the two is toxic and Lowry's battle between getting his mother's approval and doing what he wants is a powerful one... that this film doesn't quite manage to capture.
What this film does do beautifully is the portrayal of Lowry's paintings. I'm not an expert on his work but it was easy to spot where the scenes had been framed to reflect a piece, you get a chance to see the comparisons briefly at the end of the film. The colours throughout are also spot on for his pieces and the whole film has a very effective range in that respect.
The picturesque doesn't make up for the way the rest of the film cuts off moment in their prime, while I knew it probably wasn't going to hit the high star ratings I had hoped for something above average considering the cast. It sadly didn't deliver and to add even more disappointment it was ended with what I can only describe as a BBC ending to a partially dramatised biography and well, that just put the final nail in the coffin for me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/09/mrs-lowry-son-movie-review.html
Lowry's life revolves around his mother, he cooks for her and keeps her company, but nothing he does seems to be good enough. Her life isn't what she'd like at all, her husband left them with debts and they're living in a neighbourhood that's beneath her and she's clinging to the things that are "better" in the world. He son's hobby of painting isn't to her liking especially after a critic pans a piece he submits. Lowry has one thing to cling to in life but his mother is a fickle person and it may be that nothing is ever enough to her.
The majority of the film is made up of scenes around Lowry and his mother, even at only 1 hour 31 minutes that's a lot of time with limited cast. Both leads are impressive actors and there's no denying that you can see it in this movie but there's something lacking. The story wasn't going to be an overly exciting one and was going to rely on its dramatic performances to keep your interest, everything was "nearly but not quite". You expect some moving moments and at several points you think "oh it's coming now" but it always seems to peter off before the pay-off.
That's not to say that the acting isn't good, it is, but all the scenes were just moments short of something special. Spall does get a few opportunities that get you choked up for him, but as I say, there was opportunity for much more.
It's an intriguing story of the way love for family can dictate the way your life goes. The dynamic between the two is toxic and Lowry's battle between getting his mother's approval and doing what he wants is a powerful one... that this film doesn't quite manage to capture.
What this film does do beautifully is the portrayal of Lowry's paintings. I'm not an expert on his work but it was easy to spot where the scenes had been framed to reflect a piece, you get a chance to see the comparisons briefly at the end of the film. The colours throughout are also spot on for his pieces and the whole film has a very effective range in that respect.
The picturesque doesn't make up for the way the rest of the film cuts off moment in their prime, while I knew it probably wasn't going to hit the high star ratings I had hoped for something above average considering the cast. It sadly didn't deliver and to add even more disappointment it was ended with what I can only describe as a BBC ending to a partially dramatised biography and well, that just put the final nail in the coffin for me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/09/mrs-lowry-son-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated All the Money in the World (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
You can’t take it with you.
The big talking point of this Ridley Scott film is not of course the film itself but the fact that the disgraced Kevin Spacey (“Baby Driver“) was ‘airbrushed’ out of the movie, replaced by the legend that is Christopher Plummer. With that background, and the fact that the re-shoot only took 9 days (NINE DAYS!!!!), I must admit to having been a tad scornful when Plummer was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar. “Oh” I thought “…it’s Judi Dench’s minimalistic performance in ‘Shakespeare In Love’ all over again”.
But actually on watching the film I take it all back. Plummer’s role is not, like Dench’s, a mere eight minutes of screen time, but extensive and pivotal. Not only was his nomination richly deserved (his performance is cold, eerie and magnificent!) but Ridley Scott deserved an award for getting so much great footage in the can in such a short space of time.
The film tells the true story of the feckless John Paul Getty III (Charlie Plummer, no relation), grandson to the richest man in the world John Paul Getty I. While in the Piazza Farnese in Rome, JPGIII is kidnapped and a $17 million reward is sought for his release. Whilst claiming to love his offspring, the tycoon is basically a ‘tight git’ and the film concerns the battle of the young heir’s mother Gail (Michelle Williams, “Manchester By The Sea”; “The Greatest Showman”) to persuade JPG1 and his right-hand negotiator Fletcher Chase (Mark Wahlberg, “Patriot’s Day”, “Deep Water Horizon“) to shake the money tree* and get JPGIII released.
*To be fair, JPGIII hasn’t exactly helped his case as it emerges he had previously joked about getting himself kidnapped to get his grandfather’s ransom money!
As I didn’t remember the historical outcome of this, I was in a suitable amount of suspense as to where it would go. It is clear though, from the wiki version of the story, that the ending was significantly ‘sexed-up’ for the movie.
Ridley Scott sensibly balances the views of the Getty’s with the views of the kidnappers, with a semi-sympathetic Italian (Romain Duris) being the focus of those scenes in rural Calabria.
But it’s the scenes with Plummer that really engage. The man as portrayed is an enigma, eccentrically washing his own clothes to save a few pennies and always (ALWAYS) trying to get 20% more on even the most personal of decisions. It makes me really intrigued to see Spacey’s portrayal now… I wonder if the alternate cut might make it onto the Blu-ray? I actually think though that Plummer was the better choice for this: I could see Spacey bringing far too much of Frank Underwood to the role.
Elsewhere in the cast, I think Michelle Williams and Mark Wahlberg are both solid without ever being spectacular and it’s nice to see the talented Andrew Buchan (“The Mercy“; “Broadchurch”) in a more memorable big screen outing as JPG2: his drug-addled son (and JPG3’s father).
Overall, it’s an interesting watch and had me sufficiently engaged to want to watch it again. But without Plummer’s role it wouldn’t really amount to nearly as much.
But actually on watching the film I take it all back. Plummer’s role is not, like Dench’s, a mere eight minutes of screen time, but extensive and pivotal. Not only was his nomination richly deserved (his performance is cold, eerie and magnificent!) but Ridley Scott deserved an award for getting so much great footage in the can in such a short space of time.
The film tells the true story of the feckless John Paul Getty III (Charlie Plummer, no relation), grandson to the richest man in the world John Paul Getty I. While in the Piazza Farnese in Rome, JPGIII is kidnapped and a $17 million reward is sought for his release. Whilst claiming to love his offspring, the tycoon is basically a ‘tight git’ and the film concerns the battle of the young heir’s mother Gail (Michelle Williams, “Manchester By The Sea”; “The Greatest Showman”) to persuade JPG1 and his right-hand negotiator Fletcher Chase (Mark Wahlberg, “Patriot’s Day”, “Deep Water Horizon“) to shake the money tree* and get JPGIII released.
*To be fair, JPGIII hasn’t exactly helped his case as it emerges he had previously joked about getting himself kidnapped to get his grandfather’s ransom money!
As I didn’t remember the historical outcome of this, I was in a suitable amount of suspense as to where it would go. It is clear though, from the wiki version of the story, that the ending was significantly ‘sexed-up’ for the movie.
Ridley Scott sensibly balances the views of the Getty’s with the views of the kidnappers, with a semi-sympathetic Italian (Romain Duris) being the focus of those scenes in rural Calabria.
But it’s the scenes with Plummer that really engage. The man as portrayed is an enigma, eccentrically washing his own clothes to save a few pennies and always (ALWAYS) trying to get 20% more on even the most personal of decisions. It makes me really intrigued to see Spacey’s portrayal now… I wonder if the alternate cut might make it onto the Blu-ray? I actually think though that Plummer was the better choice for this: I could see Spacey bringing far too much of Frank Underwood to the role.
Elsewhere in the cast, I think Michelle Williams and Mark Wahlberg are both solid without ever being spectacular and it’s nice to see the talented Andrew Buchan (“The Mercy“; “Broadchurch”) in a more memorable big screen outing as JPG2: his drug-addled son (and JPG3’s father).
Overall, it’s an interesting watch and had me sufficiently engaged to want to watch it again. But without Plummer’s role it wouldn’t really amount to nearly as much.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Jem and the Holograms (2015) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Being a teenager is a confusing time, we want to be accepted, popular, and, at times, invisible. In a world where you feel overlooked and ignored, it is gratifying to have a voice, an identity, some special aspect that is going to make you stand out and be accepted. Jem and the Holograms attempts to make this a theme. Creating your identity and having the ability to shape and form it into a way that it becomes your own shield against the ills of the world. It is a very promising concept and idea when attempting to update the series for today’s audience. Unfortunately there isn’t much substance to the film. The substance that is apparent is quite shallow and undeveloped.
Instead of sticking with the original premise and backstory of the popular cartoon series of the 1980s, it tries to modernize itself in a way that holds onto little of its origin other than the name of some of the characters. There is no heart with this film, there is no feeling driving the movie that makes you want to cheer for the characters to become successful. This is mainly due to the film not giving audiences a chance to like the characters or even learn who they really are. The film makes everything look so easy within the music industry. The basic understanding is that if you post a video online, you might be discovered and are immediately offered a recording contract. This storyline will resonate with many of the “Generation Me” and “Kardashian Culture” crowd that is filled dreams of becoming famous for doing little to nothing.
The story is beyond far-fetched in that it every problem, riddle, issue, and negative moment is resolved in the next scene. There is no struggle for any of the characters other than the possibility that their aunt and foster mother may lose their house, but even this is solved within two minutes.
The one shining light in the film is Juliette Lewis as Erica Raymond, CEO of Starlight Records who gives Jem and her sisters the opportunity to take over the spotlight. She is not only the comic relief, but serves the role as a conniving, manipulative recording manager. This is pretty much the only similarity that exists between this film and the original series. Erica prompts older audiences to think of the Misfits (the nemesis to the Holograms) who were continuously trying to sabotage their careers. The rest of the cast, leaves one not feeling connected to them or their storylines. There is no development for any of the people throughout the film. It almost seems as though when making the film, the production team sat around thinking, “It’s Jem, the music will carry the story.” Unfortunately, the music that is included goes no further than being the typical pop music similar to that which is on every station today. There is nothing that stands out about the music, as catchy as it is, that makes you feel as though you should become invested in who these girls are or even that they have something that makes them stand out. With the time that has passed since the cartoon appeared on television, there should have been more investment in who these girls are and why we should care about them. Audiences don’t have that opportunity, as they become famous, seemingly overnight. It almost makes one want to root against them.
There is a real opportunity missed with this film to combine the original show, catering to older audiences who watched the show as children, and update it for a newer generation. The film would have been much better served with inclusion of many of the elements that made the series have such appeal. The approach is very juvenile and rushed. The original show was more than music, it was about the relationships formed by many of the characters and the various adventures that they would pursue. There were stories with depth and continuity which reinforced the aspects of working hard and achievement of goals. The whole movie looks like a diary entry of what an American tween would see as their life in entertainment. The one positive note about the film is the way that it incorporates social media in the development of the story. It demonstrates the connection that is and can be made through music and pop culture.
Sadly, in contrast to the original series, the film demeans and belittles women. Its approach is short-sighted and does not deal with any aspect of reality that one would expect. Jem is nothing more than a manufactured pop music story. There is little that audiences could relate to. In a sense, it is anti-music, and anti-intellectual. The film itself, is filler and a corruption of the origin story and the time that has passed since it first debuted. Audiences of Jem the TV series may be appalled at what they witness, if they do decide to actually watch the film. For younger audiences, this film reinforces the belief that all kids should get participation trophies because they tried. There is the sense that if you just show up, the opportunity will be handed to you. There is no real work on the screen and it seems as though there was no real work or effort put into creating this film. Younger audiences will tout the music and friendship displayed. Older audiences who were fans of the television show will be soundly disappointed in what they witness on the screen. It is a bastardization of what Jem should be in a modern age. There is no soul to this film. Every note that it hits is flat.
http://sknr.net/2015/10/23/jem-and-the-holograms/
Instead of sticking with the original premise and backstory of the popular cartoon series of the 1980s, it tries to modernize itself in a way that holds onto little of its origin other than the name of some of the characters. There is no heart with this film, there is no feeling driving the movie that makes you want to cheer for the characters to become successful. This is mainly due to the film not giving audiences a chance to like the characters or even learn who they really are. The film makes everything look so easy within the music industry. The basic understanding is that if you post a video online, you might be discovered and are immediately offered a recording contract. This storyline will resonate with many of the “Generation Me” and “Kardashian Culture” crowd that is filled dreams of becoming famous for doing little to nothing.
The story is beyond far-fetched in that it every problem, riddle, issue, and negative moment is resolved in the next scene. There is no struggle for any of the characters other than the possibility that their aunt and foster mother may lose their house, but even this is solved within two minutes.
The one shining light in the film is Juliette Lewis as Erica Raymond, CEO of Starlight Records who gives Jem and her sisters the opportunity to take over the spotlight. She is not only the comic relief, but serves the role as a conniving, manipulative recording manager. This is pretty much the only similarity that exists between this film and the original series. Erica prompts older audiences to think of the Misfits (the nemesis to the Holograms) who were continuously trying to sabotage their careers. The rest of the cast, leaves one not feeling connected to them or their storylines. There is no development for any of the people throughout the film. It almost seems as though when making the film, the production team sat around thinking, “It’s Jem, the music will carry the story.” Unfortunately, the music that is included goes no further than being the typical pop music similar to that which is on every station today. There is nothing that stands out about the music, as catchy as it is, that makes you feel as though you should become invested in who these girls are or even that they have something that makes them stand out. With the time that has passed since the cartoon appeared on television, there should have been more investment in who these girls are and why we should care about them. Audiences don’t have that opportunity, as they become famous, seemingly overnight. It almost makes one want to root against them.
There is a real opportunity missed with this film to combine the original show, catering to older audiences who watched the show as children, and update it for a newer generation. The film would have been much better served with inclusion of many of the elements that made the series have such appeal. The approach is very juvenile and rushed. The original show was more than music, it was about the relationships formed by many of the characters and the various adventures that they would pursue. There were stories with depth and continuity which reinforced the aspects of working hard and achievement of goals. The whole movie looks like a diary entry of what an American tween would see as their life in entertainment. The one positive note about the film is the way that it incorporates social media in the development of the story. It demonstrates the connection that is and can be made through music and pop culture.
Sadly, in contrast to the original series, the film demeans and belittles women. Its approach is short-sighted and does not deal with any aspect of reality that one would expect. Jem is nothing more than a manufactured pop music story. There is little that audiences could relate to. In a sense, it is anti-music, and anti-intellectual. The film itself, is filler and a corruption of the origin story and the time that has passed since it first debuted. Audiences of Jem the TV series may be appalled at what they witness, if they do decide to actually watch the film. For younger audiences, this film reinforces the belief that all kids should get participation trophies because they tried. There is the sense that if you just show up, the opportunity will be handed to you. There is no real work on the screen and it seems as though there was no real work or effort put into creating this film. Younger audiences will tout the music and friendship displayed. Older audiences who were fans of the television show will be soundly disappointed in what they witness on the screen. It is a bastardization of what Jem should be in a modern age. There is no soul to this film. Every note that it hits is flat.
http://sknr.net/2015/10/23/jem-and-the-holograms/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Marriage Story (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
One Mann’s Movies Review of “Marriage Story” – a “Kramer vs Kramer lite” in my book, albeit with some great acting performances.
K vs K Lite.
For me, mention the phrase “divorce movie” and there’s only one film that comes to mind – the Oscar-laden classic from 1979 starring an immaculate Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep. THAT toy plane; THOSE stiches! (Gulp). This is the yardstick by which I judge such movies… and to be honest, “Marriage Story” didn’t measure up.
The story.
We start the movie seeing the apparently idyllic married life of theatre impresario Charlie (Adam Driver) and his lead actress and muse Nicole (Scarlett Johansson), together bringing up their young child. But spin forwards and the pair are in the middle of an ‘amicable’ separation, with Nicole returning to her home roots in California and Charlie having an expensive commute to and from New York where he’s struggling to premiere his show on Broadway.
But despite an agreement to keep lawyers out of the equation, Nicole is persuaded to lawyer up with Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern) tightening up the legal screws until Charlie’s life risks being torn apart. It’s time for him to fight back.
Well regarded by the Academy.
As for “Kramer vs Kramer”, this is a movie that has been garlanded with multiple Oscar nominations. Both Driver and Johansson are nominated in the lead acting roles and Laura Dern seems to be favourite for the Best Supporting Actress gong (after winning the Golden Globe and the BAFTA). Three more Oscar nominations come for the score (by Randy Newman); the original screenplay (by director Noah Baumbach); and a Best Film nomination.
Both leads deliver really emotional performances, with Johansson in particular being very believable in the role. But who knew she was so short?! She always strikes me as a statuesque beauty, but she’s only 5′ 3” and it’s particularly noticeable in a scene filmed at Warner Brothers Studios.
It’s also fabulous to see both the great Alan Alda (here showing signs of his Parkinson’s) and Ray Liotta on screen again, as both low-rent and top-dollar lawyers respectively.
But WHY exactly are they divorcing?
I found the whole set up of the movie as frustrating. There seemed no clear understanding of why the separation is happening. True there is an affair involved (and Mrs Movie Man and I have always lived our nearly 40 years of marriage with the understanding that a “one strike” rule applies). But notwithstanding that, it seems to be more of a ‘drifting apart’ that’s gone on. I just wanted to give them a good shaking and get them to work it out!
This is all obviously unfair – because (and I also know this from experience) that in many marriages ‘shit happens’: some people do just want to do different things; feel suffocated; etc. And – thinking about it – I’m not sure there was any real reason given for Meryl Streep‘s departure in K vs K: which was part of the reason for Dustin Hoffman‘s character’s frustration.
Who do you sympathise with?
This is a movie where the audience is bound to take a side. But for me, there was only one side to take and that was Charlie’s. The actions of Nicole seem reprehensible and unforgivable, and when there are lines to be crossed she seems to have little hesitation in crossing them.
Many people seem to rave about this movie, but…
…I found the pace to be inconsistent. At one point, the story just stops for a soulful rendition by Charlie of a song in a bar, and I frankly just got bored with it. And while there’s a steady build up of the legal case involved, suddenly we seem to skip to a resolution without any real rationale for it. Or did I fall asleep??
A further irritation for me was Julie Hagerty as Nicole’s mum Sandra. She does the kooky mum turn that she did perfectly well in last year’s funny “Instant Family“, but its a role that really didn’t seem to fit in this movie. There’s an element of slapstick comedy in these scenes that just didn’t suit the general tone of the movie.
Overall, I just don’t share the love for this movie. Given the choice, I’d much rather watch Kramer vs Kramer again.
And what was that punchline?
By the way, Alan Alda is a fantastic comedian, and really knows how to deliver a joke. In this movie he’s regaling Charlie with a long-winded story (on the clock) when Charlie interrupts him. How did it end…. Alda revealed the full joke after a press screening at the New York Film Festival… and it’s a corker!
This woman’s at her hairdresser’s, and she says, “I’m going to Rome on holiday.”
He says, “Oh really, what airline are you taking?”
She says, “Alitalia.”
He says, “Alitalia, are you crazy? That’s terrible, don’t take that.”
He says, “Where are you gonna stay?”
She says, “I’m gonna stay at The Hassler.”
“The Hassler! What, are you kidding? They’re renovating the Hassler. You’ll hear hammering all night long. You won’t sleep! What are you gonna see?”
She says, “I think I’m going to try to go to the Vatican.” “The Vatican? You’ll be standing in line all day long—”
(Charlie interrupts at this point, but the joke goes on)
So she goes to Rome. She comes back, and the hairdresser says, “How was it?”
She says, “It was a great trip, it was wonderful.”
“How was the Vatican?”
“Wonderful! We happened to meet the Pope.”
“You met the Pope?”
“Yeah, and he spoke to me.”
“What did he say to you?”
“He said, ‘Where’d you get that f***ing haircut?’”
LOL!
For me, mention the phrase “divorce movie” and there’s only one film that comes to mind – the Oscar-laden classic from 1979 starring an immaculate Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep. THAT toy plane; THOSE stiches! (Gulp). This is the yardstick by which I judge such movies… and to be honest, “Marriage Story” didn’t measure up.
The story.
We start the movie seeing the apparently idyllic married life of theatre impresario Charlie (Adam Driver) and his lead actress and muse Nicole (Scarlett Johansson), together bringing up their young child. But spin forwards and the pair are in the middle of an ‘amicable’ separation, with Nicole returning to her home roots in California and Charlie having an expensive commute to and from New York where he’s struggling to premiere his show on Broadway.
But despite an agreement to keep lawyers out of the equation, Nicole is persuaded to lawyer up with Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern) tightening up the legal screws until Charlie’s life risks being torn apart. It’s time for him to fight back.
Well regarded by the Academy.
As for “Kramer vs Kramer”, this is a movie that has been garlanded with multiple Oscar nominations. Both Driver and Johansson are nominated in the lead acting roles and Laura Dern seems to be favourite for the Best Supporting Actress gong (after winning the Golden Globe and the BAFTA). Three more Oscar nominations come for the score (by Randy Newman); the original screenplay (by director Noah Baumbach); and a Best Film nomination.
Both leads deliver really emotional performances, with Johansson in particular being very believable in the role. But who knew she was so short?! She always strikes me as a statuesque beauty, but she’s only 5′ 3” and it’s particularly noticeable in a scene filmed at Warner Brothers Studios.
It’s also fabulous to see both the great Alan Alda (here showing signs of his Parkinson’s) and Ray Liotta on screen again, as both low-rent and top-dollar lawyers respectively.
But WHY exactly are they divorcing?
I found the whole set up of the movie as frustrating. There seemed no clear understanding of why the separation is happening. True there is an affair involved (and Mrs Movie Man and I have always lived our nearly 40 years of marriage with the understanding that a “one strike” rule applies). But notwithstanding that, it seems to be more of a ‘drifting apart’ that’s gone on. I just wanted to give them a good shaking and get them to work it out!
This is all obviously unfair – because (and I also know this from experience) that in many marriages ‘shit happens’: some people do just want to do different things; feel suffocated; etc. And – thinking about it – I’m not sure there was any real reason given for Meryl Streep‘s departure in K vs K: which was part of the reason for Dustin Hoffman‘s character’s frustration.
Who do you sympathise with?
This is a movie where the audience is bound to take a side. But for me, there was only one side to take and that was Charlie’s. The actions of Nicole seem reprehensible and unforgivable, and when there are lines to be crossed she seems to have little hesitation in crossing them.
Many people seem to rave about this movie, but…
…I found the pace to be inconsistent. At one point, the story just stops for a soulful rendition by Charlie of a song in a bar, and I frankly just got bored with it. And while there’s a steady build up of the legal case involved, suddenly we seem to skip to a resolution without any real rationale for it. Or did I fall asleep??
A further irritation for me was Julie Hagerty as Nicole’s mum Sandra. She does the kooky mum turn that she did perfectly well in last year’s funny “Instant Family“, but its a role that really didn’t seem to fit in this movie. There’s an element of slapstick comedy in these scenes that just didn’t suit the general tone of the movie.
Overall, I just don’t share the love for this movie. Given the choice, I’d much rather watch Kramer vs Kramer again.
And what was that punchline?
By the way, Alan Alda is a fantastic comedian, and really knows how to deliver a joke. In this movie he’s regaling Charlie with a long-winded story (on the clock) when Charlie interrupts him. How did it end…. Alda revealed the full joke after a press screening at the New York Film Festival… and it’s a corker!
This woman’s at her hairdresser’s, and she says, “I’m going to Rome on holiday.”
He says, “Oh really, what airline are you taking?”
She says, “Alitalia.”
He says, “Alitalia, are you crazy? That’s terrible, don’t take that.”
He says, “Where are you gonna stay?”
She says, “I’m gonna stay at The Hassler.”
“The Hassler! What, are you kidding? They’re renovating the Hassler. You’ll hear hammering all night long. You won’t sleep! What are you gonna see?”
She says, “I think I’m going to try to go to the Vatican.” “The Vatican? You’ll be standing in line all day long—”
(Charlie interrupts at this point, but the joke goes on)
So she goes to Rome. She comes back, and the hairdresser says, “How was it?”
She says, “It was a great trip, it was wonderful.”
“How was the Vatican?”
“Wonderful! We happened to meet the Pope.”
“You met the Pope?”
“Yeah, and he spoke to me.”
“What did he say to you?”
“He said, ‘Where’d you get that f***ing haircut?’”
LOL!
Andy Meakin (5 KP) rated War for the Planet of the Apes (2017) in Movies
Jan 8, 2018
Apes...together...strong!
The recent revival of the Apes franchise has managed to defy all expectations by not only being a worthy entry into the franchise, but also being strong films on their own merit. Working as a kind-of-prequel-reboot of the old franchise, and ignoring the Tim Burton film completely, it is strange to realise this is only the third film since the reboot. Lesser franchises would have churned out one every year or two, and be up to part five by now, but not the Apes films. It genuinely feels like they are taking time to ensure each film is worthy. Which is where another expectation is defied – the films don’t seem to diminish in quality, nor feel repetitive. Each entry so far has had its own feel and worked to move the story along. War for the Planet of the Apes is no exception, and is one of the finest blockbuster films of this year.
It has been 15 years since the events of the first film, and the release of the Simian Flu virus that wiped out a large percentage of humanity. The events of the second film saw the start of conflict between the apes and humans, instigated by Koba who defied Caesar’s leadership. Now, humanity are hunting down the apes, with one Colonel (Woody Harrelson) in particular striving to wipe them out entirely. When that Colonel attacks Caesar’s tribe, killing those close to him, it sets the ape leader off on a personal revenge journey, with only a few of his most loyal followers supporting him on the way. However, along the way they encounter two new recruits, an ape hermit who has also developed speech, and a young human girl who is showing signs of a new strain of the Simian virus.
It is a testament to the motion captured performances and the quality of the CGI on offer that at no point during the film do you not believe that the apes on screen are real. There’s a line in the film where Harrelson’s Colonel comments on how human looking Caesar’s eyes are, and whilst you could see that in the context of the film series’ arc (apes are becoming the new rulers, usurping humanity, and so are becoming more human), you can also see it as a nod to how the ‘uncanny valley’ dead-eye stare that plagues CGI in film is entirely absent here. Indeed, given that every scene in this relatively moderate $150million budget film is an effect shot, as apes are present throughout, it is jaw dropping that it looks a far more polished film than, for example, the $265million budgeted Rogue One – a film which tried desperately with two key CGI characters and failed so hard in the brief screen time they had. Over all the Apes series has impressed with the effects work, but here it is pretty much flawless.
But it isn’t all about the effects. In fact the action-packed film the trailers seemed to hint at is instead a thoughtful, character-driven revenge journey, with only short bursts of action. This is Caesar’s dark-journey of the soul, the end result of his attempts to live a peaceful co-existence with a humanity that fears him and his kind. Many comparisons can be drawn to films such as Apocalypse Now (something the film is aware of and manages to drop a reference to as a result), where a troubled individual, tired of war, seeks a crazed Colonel who is amassing his own army for an unknown purpose. The two core leads in their respective roles give their all. Serkis acting to a high degree, and giving genuine life to Caesar, and Harrelson gone completely Brando in his part, menacing without being overbearing.
The journey itself is a compelling story, and the support characters, some who we already know (Maurice, Luca and Rocket) acting as the conscience and the advisers to the troubled Caesar. The new additions, Amiah Miller’s war orphan who Maurice adopts on their journey, and Bad Ape (Steve Zahn) offer heart and comic relief respectively. The comic timing is perfectly placed, never feeling forced, and being deftly used to offer a glimmer of hope and joy in what is otherwise a very dark tale.
The film, overall, nicely rounds out the trilogy, whilst still leaving room for future films down the line. Matt Reeves’ direction makes effective use of his cast and settings, whilst the score by Michael Giacchino has grown more ‘ape-inspired’ since he scored the previous film, reflecting in its drums and pipes the more primate nature manner the world is taking as technology and humanity dwindles.
“Apes together strong!” is Caesar’s mantra. Indeed, all three Apes films, when viewed together, can be seen as one impressive, strong story, with a genuine progression throughout. A third film in a franchise usually derails and loses the way. Not here as this is one of the finest examples of intelligent blockbuster that you will find.
It has been 15 years since the events of the first film, and the release of the Simian Flu virus that wiped out a large percentage of humanity. The events of the second film saw the start of conflict between the apes and humans, instigated by Koba who defied Caesar’s leadership. Now, humanity are hunting down the apes, with one Colonel (Woody Harrelson) in particular striving to wipe them out entirely. When that Colonel attacks Caesar’s tribe, killing those close to him, it sets the ape leader off on a personal revenge journey, with only a few of his most loyal followers supporting him on the way. However, along the way they encounter two new recruits, an ape hermit who has also developed speech, and a young human girl who is showing signs of a new strain of the Simian virus.
It is a testament to the motion captured performances and the quality of the CGI on offer that at no point during the film do you not believe that the apes on screen are real. There’s a line in the film where Harrelson’s Colonel comments on how human looking Caesar’s eyes are, and whilst you could see that in the context of the film series’ arc (apes are becoming the new rulers, usurping humanity, and so are becoming more human), you can also see it as a nod to how the ‘uncanny valley’ dead-eye stare that plagues CGI in film is entirely absent here. Indeed, given that every scene in this relatively moderate $150million budget film is an effect shot, as apes are present throughout, it is jaw dropping that it looks a far more polished film than, for example, the $265million budgeted Rogue One – a film which tried desperately with two key CGI characters and failed so hard in the brief screen time they had. Over all the Apes series has impressed with the effects work, but here it is pretty much flawless.
But it isn’t all about the effects. In fact the action-packed film the trailers seemed to hint at is instead a thoughtful, character-driven revenge journey, with only short bursts of action. This is Caesar’s dark-journey of the soul, the end result of his attempts to live a peaceful co-existence with a humanity that fears him and his kind. Many comparisons can be drawn to films such as Apocalypse Now (something the film is aware of and manages to drop a reference to as a result), where a troubled individual, tired of war, seeks a crazed Colonel who is amassing his own army for an unknown purpose. The two core leads in their respective roles give their all. Serkis acting to a high degree, and giving genuine life to Caesar, and Harrelson gone completely Brando in his part, menacing without being overbearing.
The journey itself is a compelling story, and the support characters, some who we already know (Maurice, Luca and Rocket) acting as the conscience and the advisers to the troubled Caesar. The new additions, Amiah Miller’s war orphan who Maurice adopts on their journey, and Bad Ape (Steve Zahn) offer heart and comic relief respectively. The comic timing is perfectly placed, never feeling forced, and being deftly used to offer a glimmer of hope and joy in what is otherwise a very dark tale.
The film, overall, nicely rounds out the trilogy, whilst still leaving room for future films down the line. Matt Reeves’ direction makes effective use of his cast and settings, whilst the score by Michael Giacchino has grown more ‘ape-inspired’ since he scored the previous film, reflecting in its drums and pipes the more primate nature manner the world is taking as technology and humanity dwindles.
“Apes together strong!” is Caesar’s mantra. Indeed, all three Apes films, when viewed together, can be seen as one impressive, strong story, with a genuine progression throughout. A third film in a franchise usually derails and loses the way. Not here as this is one of the finest examples of intelligent blockbuster that you will find.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Land of the Dead (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Twenty years after his last installment of the classic “Dead” zombie genre, landmark Horror writer/director George Romero has returned to the delight of fans worldwide.
After years of various horror projects, and remakes of his previous “Dead” films, fans had begun to wonder if they had seen the last of Romero’s Zombie films and had to content themselves with the remakes and rumored offshoots and sequels from such.
Thankfully, with Land of the Dead Romero has returned to his basics and has crafted a Zombie thriller that is not only better than 85’s disappointing “Day of the Dead”, but on par with the ground breaking “Dawn of the Dead and the classic Original “Night of the Living Dead.”
For those who are not familiar with the series, the dead have arisen and now walk the earth looking for humans to feed upon. Gone is any memory of their former selves, only the insatiable desire to feed remains. How this event happened is never explained in the films viewers simply have to accept that it is happening and that those who are bitten by zombies are destined to join the ranks of the undead.
Like the previous films, the story follows a group of humans who are attempting to survive against the zombie hordes and who seek shelter and a way to stave off the zombie masses.
In Land of the Dead, a group of survivors have taken refuge in a fortified city where the common folks live in the streets while the affluent live in pristine high rise complex with many of the luxuries of their past lives.
One such survivor is Riley (Simon Baker), who spends his time venturing beyond the walls of the city with his team as they attempt to locate food, medicines, and other needed items in cities that have been abandoned due to zombie infestation.
As the film opens, Riley is completing his last run as he plans to venture north to find a cold and desolated area that is devoid of zombies and huddled masses.
His second in command Cholo, (John Leguizamo), is anxious to take over, as he sees the expeditions as a chance to obtain valuable items such as cigars and whiskey, which he can in turn sell to those who live in luxury. This desire causes much friction between Riley and Cholo but with the pending departure of Riley, Cholo realizes he may be able to finally purchase a home of his own in the luxury high rise.
Things do not go as planned for Cholo as when he tells his boss, Kaufman (Dennis Hopper), about his plans to move into the new complex, he is shocked to learn that Riley’s prediction of class exclusions in the building apply to him as well.
Furious over being used and cheated of his dreams and money, and an attempt upon his life, Cholo decides to hijack a well-armed armored vehicle that defends the city in an effort to extort his payment from Kaufman.
At the same time, Riley has learned that he has be swindled from his car, and soon finds himself working with Kaufman in an attempt to recover the armored vehicle from Cholo before he unleashes a hail of rockets upon the city. In short order, Riley and his support team are forced to enter the zombie infested streets to save the day.
Of course with “Land” being a Zombie film, the city will soon find itself overrun with all manner of ghouls and there will be plenty of flesh splitting, blood spattering, gore spewing scenes that will delight fans of the genre and elicit more than a few shrieks and cheers from the audience.
It is learned that the zombies have started to evolve and as such, now communicate with each other in a basic way, which makes their attacks even more dangerous as they are organized and starting to use tools and weapons.
What this all ads up to is a thrilling romp that will delight fans of the genre. Sure the story and characters are not the deepest, but as horror films go, there is a complexity to them. Hopper does great work as Kaufman as his malicious and selfish nature provides the perfect focal point to the films numerous commentaries on topics ranging from social class, to politics and well fare as well as the plight of the inner cities.
The genius of Romero is that he can insert so many topics into the film without it every seeming heavy-handed or over the top. The use of social commentary adds strength to the story as while the characters are in a very unrealistic situation, their base desires, motivations and behaviors are easily identifiable and strong.
Some may see Land of the Dead as just another blood and guts film with a basic story that lacks depth. To those who are fans of the genre and series, “Land” will likely be seen as a triumphant return to the genre he made his own by Romero and will enjoy the ride.
After years of various horror projects, and remakes of his previous “Dead” films, fans had begun to wonder if they had seen the last of Romero’s Zombie films and had to content themselves with the remakes and rumored offshoots and sequels from such.
Thankfully, with Land of the Dead Romero has returned to his basics and has crafted a Zombie thriller that is not only better than 85’s disappointing “Day of the Dead”, but on par with the ground breaking “Dawn of the Dead and the classic Original “Night of the Living Dead.”
For those who are not familiar with the series, the dead have arisen and now walk the earth looking for humans to feed upon. Gone is any memory of their former selves, only the insatiable desire to feed remains. How this event happened is never explained in the films viewers simply have to accept that it is happening and that those who are bitten by zombies are destined to join the ranks of the undead.
Like the previous films, the story follows a group of humans who are attempting to survive against the zombie hordes and who seek shelter and a way to stave off the zombie masses.
In Land of the Dead, a group of survivors have taken refuge in a fortified city where the common folks live in the streets while the affluent live in pristine high rise complex with many of the luxuries of their past lives.
One such survivor is Riley (Simon Baker), who spends his time venturing beyond the walls of the city with his team as they attempt to locate food, medicines, and other needed items in cities that have been abandoned due to zombie infestation.
As the film opens, Riley is completing his last run as he plans to venture north to find a cold and desolated area that is devoid of zombies and huddled masses.
His second in command Cholo, (John Leguizamo), is anxious to take over, as he sees the expeditions as a chance to obtain valuable items such as cigars and whiskey, which he can in turn sell to those who live in luxury. This desire causes much friction between Riley and Cholo but with the pending departure of Riley, Cholo realizes he may be able to finally purchase a home of his own in the luxury high rise.
Things do not go as planned for Cholo as when he tells his boss, Kaufman (Dennis Hopper), about his plans to move into the new complex, he is shocked to learn that Riley’s prediction of class exclusions in the building apply to him as well.
Furious over being used and cheated of his dreams and money, and an attempt upon his life, Cholo decides to hijack a well-armed armored vehicle that defends the city in an effort to extort his payment from Kaufman.
At the same time, Riley has learned that he has be swindled from his car, and soon finds himself working with Kaufman in an attempt to recover the armored vehicle from Cholo before he unleashes a hail of rockets upon the city. In short order, Riley and his support team are forced to enter the zombie infested streets to save the day.
Of course with “Land” being a Zombie film, the city will soon find itself overrun with all manner of ghouls and there will be plenty of flesh splitting, blood spattering, gore spewing scenes that will delight fans of the genre and elicit more than a few shrieks and cheers from the audience.
It is learned that the zombies have started to evolve and as such, now communicate with each other in a basic way, which makes their attacks even more dangerous as they are organized and starting to use tools and weapons.
What this all ads up to is a thrilling romp that will delight fans of the genre. Sure the story and characters are not the deepest, but as horror films go, there is a complexity to them. Hopper does great work as Kaufman as his malicious and selfish nature provides the perfect focal point to the films numerous commentaries on topics ranging from social class, to politics and well fare as well as the plight of the inner cities.
The genius of Romero is that he can insert so many topics into the film without it every seeming heavy-handed or over the top. The use of social commentary adds strength to the story as while the characters are in a very unrealistic situation, their base desires, motivations and behaviors are easily identifiable and strong.
Some may see Land of the Dead as just another blood and guts film with a basic story that lacks depth. To those who are fans of the genre and series, “Land” will likely be seen as a triumphant return to the genre he made his own by Romero and will enjoy the ride.