Search
Search results
American Woman (2019)
Movie
A political activist (Hong Chau) helps take care of a group of America’s most wanted fugitives —...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ma Rainey's Black Bottom (2020) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“1, 2, You know what to do”.
I’ve put off watching this movie, since the subject matter didn’t immediately grab me. But I’m glad I caught it, since I really enjoyed it. All in all, it feels a little surprising in retrospect that “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom” didn’t make the Oscar “Best Picture” list.
Positives:
I really wanted to put down all of the ‘Oscar buzz’ about the late Chadwick Boseman to a mawkish sentimentality about the actor’s tragic passing (which sounds disrespectful, but is not intended to). But having seen the performance as Levee, I take it all back. He’s stunning in the role and thoroughly deserves not only the Oscar nomination, but potentially also the win. A monologue about a traumatic childhood experience is Oscar-clip gold. What a way to ‘go out on a high’.
Viola Davis has a miraculous transformation as the historical singer in the twilight of her career. When you see her doing interviews (there is a very good 30 minute “Making of” documentary on Netflix), it’s almost impossible to believe that she is the same actress.
There are some great supporting performances as well: Glynn Turman as Toledo is great; and Taylour Paige is memorably sexy as the love interest (surprisingly) of two of the leads.
Both the production design and the costume/hair design are exquisite: no more so than in the gorgeous opening scene of the performance in the tent. Again, very deserving of their Oscar nominations.
There are some great directorial flourishes by Wolfe. One of my favourite scenes has Boseman finally breaking down a mystery door to find…. well, no spoilers, but it is a metaphor for Levee’s own struggles against life.
Negatives:
Just as in another August Wilson adaptation, “Fences” (and indeed in the recent “One Night in Miami”), the production feels like a filmed stage play. The forward motion of the movie keeps stopping for monologues by some of the characters (albeit brilliant ones in many cases).
Positives:
I really wanted to put down all of the ‘Oscar buzz’ about the late Chadwick Boseman to a mawkish sentimentality about the actor’s tragic passing (which sounds disrespectful, but is not intended to). But having seen the performance as Levee, I take it all back. He’s stunning in the role and thoroughly deserves not only the Oscar nomination, but potentially also the win. A monologue about a traumatic childhood experience is Oscar-clip gold. What a way to ‘go out on a high’.
Viola Davis has a miraculous transformation as the historical singer in the twilight of her career. When you see her doing interviews (there is a very good 30 minute “Making of” documentary on Netflix), it’s almost impossible to believe that she is the same actress.
There are some great supporting performances as well: Glynn Turman as Toledo is great; and Taylour Paige is memorably sexy as the love interest (surprisingly) of two of the leads.
Both the production design and the costume/hair design are exquisite: no more so than in the gorgeous opening scene of the performance in the tent. Again, very deserving of their Oscar nominations.
There are some great directorial flourishes by Wolfe. One of my favourite scenes has Boseman finally breaking down a mystery door to find…. well, no spoilers, but it is a metaphor for Levee’s own struggles against life.
Negatives:
Just as in another August Wilson adaptation, “Fences” (and indeed in the recent “One Night in Miami”), the production feels like a filmed stage play. The forward motion of the movie keeps stopping for monologues by some of the characters (albeit brilliant ones in many cases).
Wolves Always Bite (Willow Lake Supernaturals #2)
8.0
Rate It
Book
What’s a simple human to do when he discovers supernatural beings are real? Ask many, many, many...
MM Paranormal Romance
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Ghost Stories (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
For years, mankind has pondered over the existence of ghosts, demons and the paranormal. Many have claimed to have experienced it firsthand, while others dedicate their lives and careers to debunking those experiences. It seems to be a question that no one has been able to answer or prove one way or the other, and this fear of the unknown has been the basis of a number of popular horror stories.
Based on the stage play of the same name, ‘Ghost Stories’ follows skeptic Professor Phillip Goodman’s (Nyman) investigation of three unsolved cases, each one detailing a different haunting. After meeting with his idol and fellow skeptic Charles Cameron, and feeling deflated when he begins to question his lifelong skepticism, Goodman meets with former night watchman Tony Matthews (Whitehouse), teenager Simon Rifkind (Lawther), and businessman Mike Priddle (Freeman) to learn about their firsthand experiences with the supernatural. The film is split into three segments, allowing each character to explain their case through the use of flashbacks where we get to see exactly what happened to the characters.
Throughout these flashbacks, Nyman and Dyson have utilised a number of popular horror techniques that will make you jump out of your seat, or hide behind your hands. There’s a serious feeling of unease throughout the entire film, and you have no idea what’s going to happen next. Even as an avid fan of the genre, I found myself genuinely terrified during a large portion of the film. ‘Ghost Stories’ knows exactly how to pace a horror film, and how to leave an audience uncomfortable yet unable to look away from the screen. Whilst the jump scare is inevitable, the film doesn’t overuse these and instead finds ways to build tension and fear, which actually heightens the experience because you find yourself trying to predict when something’s going to pop out at you. It leaves you on edge for the entire ninety minutes, which in my mind, is exactly what a horror film should do.
The stories told by each of the men are gripping, and the actors all do exceptional jobs of portraying their characters. Each of the men interviewed by Goodman are very different in their class backgrounds, beliefs and personalities, but are united in their adamancy that they did experience hauntings and that they left them completely shaken up afterwards. This reinforces the idea that the supernatural can target anyone, and leave anyone feeling helpless. Particular praise has to be given to Alex Lawther; after seeing him in season 3 of ‘Black Mirror’ I had high hopes, and he delivered. He’s certainly one to watch and I look forward to seeing what he gets up to next.
‘Ghost Stories’ is incredibly British in nature, mixing the right amount of dry humour and satire into what is an utterly terrifying experience overall. Other critics have said it’s the best British horror film in years, and I couldn’t agree more. It’s an incredibly gripping story that has a lot of twists and turns, and tugs at all of your heartstrings. Alongside the characters, I went through a number of emotions and felt fully invested in their lives. These are all characters that feel familiar, they’re your average human, which throws realism into the mix. Being able to identify with characters in a horror film makes your fear 100 times worse.
This film is best experienced with as little context as possible, if you walk into it completely blind, I believe you’ll get maximum enjoyment out of it. The trailers have done a great job at keeping it as vague as possible, which was a bonus. There’s nothing worse than trailers giving everything away in a few seconds. ‘Ghost Stories’ does have a twist ending, but I thought this was done brilliantly and I personally was unable to predict it. Nyman and Dyson have put so much effort into crafting an intense, thrilling, mysterious story and it’s seriously paid off. I’m now hoping ‘Ghost Stories’ will be returning to the stage soon, because I’ll be first in line for a ticket!
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/ghost-stories/
Based on the stage play of the same name, ‘Ghost Stories’ follows skeptic Professor Phillip Goodman’s (Nyman) investigation of three unsolved cases, each one detailing a different haunting. After meeting with his idol and fellow skeptic Charles Cameron, and feeling deflated when he begins to question his lifelong skepticism, Goodman meets with former night watchman Tony Matthews (Whitehouse), teenager Simon Rifkind (Lawther), and businessman Mike Priddle (Freeman) to learn about their firsthand experiences with the supernatural. The film is split into three segments, allowing each character to explain their case through the use of flashbacks where we get to see exactly what happened to the characters.
Throughout these flashbacks, Nyman and Dyson have utilised a number of popular horror techniques that will make you jump out of your seat, or hide behind your hands. There’s a serious feeling of unease throughout the entire film, and you have no idea what’s going to happen next. Even as an avid fan of the genre, I found myself genuinely terrified during a large portion of the film. ‘Ghost Stories’ knows exactly how to pace a horror film, and how to leave an audience uncomfortable yet unable to look away from the screen. Whilst the jump scare is inevitable, the film doesn’t overuse these and instead finds ways to build tension and fear, which actually heightens the experience because you find yourself trying to predict when something’s going to pop out at you. It leaves you on edge for the entire ninety minutes, which in my mind, is exactly what a horror film should do.
The stories told by each of the men are gripping, and the actors all do exceptional jobs of portraying their characters. Each of the men interviewed by Goodman are very different in their class backgrounds, beliefs and personalities, but are united in their adamancy that they did experience hauntings and that they left them completely shaken up afterwards. This reinforces the idea that the supernatural can target anyone, and leave anyone feeling helpless. Particular praise has to be given to Alex Lawther; after seeing him in season 3 of ‘Black Mirror’ I had high hopes, and he delivered. He’s certainly one to watch and I look forward to seeing what he gets up to next.
‘Ghost Stories’ is incredibly British in nature, mixing the right amount of dry humour and satire into what is an utterly terrifying experience overall. Other critics have said it’s the best British horror film in years, and I couldn’t agree more. It’s an incredibly gripping story that has a lot of twists and turns, and tugs at all of your heartstrings. Alongside the characters, I went through a number of emotions and felt fully invested in their lives. These are all characters that feel familiar, they’re your average human, which throws realism into the mix. Being able to identify with characters in a horror film makes your fear 100 times worse.
This film is best experienced with as little context as possible, if you walk into it completely blind, I believe you’ll get maximum enjoyment out of it. The trailers have done a great job at keeping it as vague as possible, which was a bonus. There’s nothing worse than trailers giving everything away in a few seconds. ‘Ghost Stories’ does have a twist ending, but I thought this was done brilliantly and I personally was unable to predict it. Nyman and Dyson have put so much effort into crafting an intense, thrilling, mysterious story and it’s seriously paid off. I’m now hoping ‘Ghost Stories’ will be returning to the stage soon, because I’ll be first in line for a ticket!
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/ghost-stories/
Darren (1599 KP) rated King Kong (2005) in Movies
Jun 25, 2019
Thoughts on King Kong
Characters – Ann Darrow is a stage actress who has ben performing in an unsuccessful show for years until her theatre gets closed down, she is getting desperate to work with famous play write, only to find herself meeting a film director working with him. Ann jumps at the chance to have a paid gig, only this becomes more than she ever bargained for, when she becomes the object of King Kong affections on Skull Island. Carl Denham is a film director whose latest film isn’t impressing his investors, he decides to run before having the whole projects plug pulled, taking his crew to an unknown island and even after the danger starts, he continues to film his evolving story. Jack Driscoll is the screenwriter that is trying to get back to his stage work, only to find that Carl has tricked him into remaining on the boat, forcing him to work on the screenplay, he starts to fall in love with Ann along the way too, willing to risk his own life to save hers. Kong is the feared ruler of Skull Island, he takes Ann as a sacrifice falling in love with the human on his island, he can fight any threat, including T-Rexes. He is the icon that we know from previous films bought to life once again.
Performances – Naomi Watts in the role made famous by Fay Wray, brings her own stamp to the role, handling the small comic moments very well through the film too. Jack Black might not have been many people’s first choice for the director role, but he proves a lot of people wrong with his performance, which still remains one of his best. Adrian Brody proves to be a great choice too because he gets to poke fun at the Hollywood stereotypes.
Story – The story here follows an ambitious director who takes his crew including a desperate young actress to Skull Island, a mysterious uncharted location only to find a land filled with unseen monsters including the king of the island Kong, who becomes friends with Ann the actress. This is the remake of the one of the classic films of the 1930s, it does tell the same story, only builds on everything to new levels, because back then, nobody knew how big movies were going to be, so this time we can look back at the movie building era, showing more of the conflicts between movies and theatre. The island is also much larger in scale with plenty of creatures which add to the story. we do even have small side stories which do work to fill the films lengthy 3 hour plus run time. We do get to see just how destructive the human can be to new worlds too.
Action/Adventure – The action in the film is massive, edge of the seat and most importantly brilliant to watch, be it the fights between creatures, monsters and humans, right down to the New York showdown with Kong. The adventure does take us to a new world, where we haven’t seen the creatures before, or at least not this size. It shows the most dangerous side of the explorer’s journeys in the world.
Settings – The film does use two main settings, first New York which is re-created for the time period perfectly, the second is the island which is filled with the beauty and terror you would have come to expect from an unknown location
Special Effects – The effects are one of the biggest talking points of this film, first of all Kong looks fantastic, large amounts of the film looks brilliant, but that one chase scene will drag this down because it is such a weak point for the film.
Scene of the Movie – Kong versus the T-Rex.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The canyon chase the CGI looks awful.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the remakes that works because of the improvement in technology, it is epic in scale and manages to capture the true feeling behind what made the original such a memorable movie.
Overall: Stunning remake that lives up to the scale of the movie.
Characters – Ann Darrow is a stage actress who has ben performing in an unsuccessful show for years until her theatre gets closed down, she is getting desperate to work with famous play write, only to find herself meeting a film director working with him. Ann jumps at the chance to have a paid gig, only this becomes more than she ever bargained for, when she becomes the object of King Kong affections on Skull Island. Carl Denham is a film director whose latest film isn’t impressing his investors, he decides to run before having the whole projects plug pulled, taking his crew to an unknown island and even after the danger starts, he continues to film his evolving story. Jack Driscoll is the screenwriter that is trying to get back to his stage work, only to find that Carl has tricked him into remaining on the boat, forcing him to work on the screenplay, he starts to fall in love with Ann along the way too, willing to risk his own life to save hers. Kong is the feared ruler of Skull Island, he takes Ann as a sacrifice falling in love with the human on his island, he can fight any threat, including T-Rexes. He is the icon that we know from previous films bought to life once again.
Performances – Naomi Watts in the role made famous by Fay Wray, brings her own stamp to the role, handling the small comic moments very well through the film too. Jack Black might not have been many people’s first choice for the director role, but he proves a lot of people wrong with his performance, which still remains one of his best. Adrian Brody proves to be a great choice too because he gets to poke fun at the Hollywood stereotypes.
Story – The story here follows an ambitious director who takes his crew including a desperate young actress to Skull Island, a mysterious uncharted location only to find a land filled with unseen monsters including the king of the island Kong, who becomes friends with Ann the actress. This is the remake of the one of the classic films of the 1930s, it does tell the same story, only builds on everything to new levels, because back then, nobody knew how big movies were going to be, so this time we can look back at the movie building era, showing more of the conflicts between movies and theatre. The island is also much larger in scale with plenty of creatures which add to the story. we do even have small side stories which do work to fill the films lengthy 3 hour plus run time. We do get to see just how destructive the human can be to new worlds too.
Action/Adventure – The action in the film is massive, edge of the seat and most importantly brilliant to watch, be it the fights between creatures, monsters and humans, right down to the New York showdown with Kong. The adventure does take us to a new world, where we haven’t seen the creatures before, or at least not this size. It shows the most dangerous side of the explorer’s journeys in the world.
Settings – The film does use two main settings, first New York which is re-created for the time period perfectly, the second is the island which is filled with the beauty and terror you would have come to expect from an unknown location
Special Effects – The effects are one of the biggest talking points of this film, first of all Kong looks fantastic, large amounts of the film looks brilliant, but that one chase scene will drag this down because it is such a weak point for the film.
Scene of the Movie – Kong versus the T-Rex.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The canyon chase the CGI looks awful.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the remakes that works because of the improvement in technology, it is epic in scale and manages to capture the true feeling behind what made the original such a memorable movie.
Overall: Stunning remake that lives up to the scale of the movie.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Neither a true biopic nor a musical, a very sad and sombre film worth seeing for a sure-fire nominee for Zellweger for the Oscars.
Decline and Fall (Part 1).
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Tragedy of Macbeth (2021) in Movies
Jan 25, 2022
Good...not Great...kind of like Macbeth
The history of cinema is littered with adaptations of William Shakespeare plays. Some are very successful - Olivier’s HAMLET (1948), Zeffirelli’s ROMEO & JULIET (1968) and, especially, Kenneth Branagh’s HENRY V (1989), my favorite film Shakespeare adaptation. And, of course, some are less than successful, like HAMLET starring Mel Gibson (1990).
Joel Cohen’s adaptation of MACBETH falls somewhere in between, more for the former but veering towards the latter.
Based on my favorite Shakespeare play, THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH follows the rise and fall of a Scottish Thane who becomes King thanks to the help (and backstage machinations) of his wife…and a murderous deed. This adaptation should really be called “THE BEST OF MACBETH” as it takes a fairly lengthy stage play and compresses it into 1 hour and 47 minutes of Cinema time.
There is plenty here that works, starting with the sense of unreality that Cohen sets this version of this story in. He filmed the entire movie on a soundstage that has a constant haziness to the background, making one think that everything going on is a dream…or maybe a memory…or maybe taking place on some parallel ethereal plane and the black and white cinematography emphasizes this point to a perfect degree.
The performances are stellar - starting with the choice to cast both Macbeth and Lady with older actors. Usually, these 2 are cast as “ambitious up and comers” in their late 20’s/early 30’s, but by using 60-something actors Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand, it makes these 2 characters more desperate for one last chance at the brass ring and makes the choices these 2 make more understandable. Of course, having Denzel and Frances play these 2 certainly helps, as both are superb thespians who are mesmerizing in their speeches (such as Macbeth’s “Is this a dagger I see before me” and Lady Macbeth’s “Out, out damn spot”).
Along for the ride - and performing strongly in this film - is Brendan Gleeson (King Duncan), Corey Hawkins (MacDuff), Bertie Carvel (Banquo) and Harry Melling (yes, Dudley Dursley of Harry Potter fame) as Malcolm. Also…it was fun to see Ralph Ineson (the Captain that pretty much starts the show), Stephen Root (the Porter) and Jefferson Mayes (the Doctor) showing up in brief, one scene cameos along the way.
But, special notice needs to be paid to Kathryn Hunter (the Witches) and Alex Hassell (Ross) who elevate both of these roles to something more than I’ve seen previously. Sure, the Witches…with such speeches as “Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble”…are the “showey” roles in this script, but in the hands of veteran Stage Actor Hunter, it turns into something much, much more. Cohen does more with the Witches than I’ve seen previously done and it works well - quite possibly to the tune of an Academy Award Nomination as Best Supporting Actress for her. Also working well is the use of the character Ross as sort of an “agent” of the Witches. This role, as written by The Bard of Avon, is pretty much a throw away, but Cohen uses it as something more and Hassell delivers the goods in an interesting way.
So, if the acting is good, the setting appropriately mysterious and the Direction generally strong, why did I not connect more with this film? I think it falls to the adaptation of the play by Mr. Cohen. By necessity, he pares down the film and it feels like it just jumps from speech to speech. As I’ve said earlier, each speech is terrific and the performers present these words very, very well, but they didn’t coalesce into anything whole that I could get emotionally attached to. This film is an “abridged” version of the Scottish play and it shows, Cohen opts to keep in the speeches (as is necessary) but that comes at the cost of losing the scenes between characters that would more strongly tie this film apart.
It’s still a worthy entry in the “Shakespeare on Film” canon - and one that is “above average” but falls far short of greatness - kind of like Macbeth himself.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Joel Cohen’s adaptation of MACBETH falls somewhere in between, more for the former but veering towards the latter.
Based on my favorite Shakespeare play, THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH follows the rise and fall of a Scottish Thane who becomes King thanks to the help (and backstage machinations) of his wife…and a murderous deed. This adaptation should really be called “THE BEST OF MACBETH” as it takes a fairly lengthy stage play and compresses it into 1 hour and 47 minutes of Cinema time.
There is plenty here that works, starting with the sense of unreality that Cohen sets this version of this story in. He filmed the entire movie on a soundstage that has a constant haziness to the background, making one think that everything going on is a dream…or maybe a memory…or maybe taking place on some parallel ethereal plane and the black and white cinematography emphasizes this point to a perfect degree.
The performances are stellar - starting with the choice to cast both Macbeth and Lady with older actors. Usually, these 2 are cast as “ambitious up and comers” in their late 20’s/early 30’s, but by using 60-something actors Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand, it makes these 2 characters more desperate for one last chance at the brass ring and makes the choices these 2 make more understandable. Of course, having Denzel and Frances play these 2 certainly helps, as both are superb thespians who are mesmerizing in their speeches (such as Macbeth’s “Is this a dagger I see before me” and Lady Macbeth’s “Out, out damn spot”).
Along for the ride - and performing strongly in this film - is Brendan Gleeson (King Duncan), Corey Hawkins (MacDuff), Bertie Carvel (Banquo) and Harry Melling (yes, Dudley Dursley of Harry Potter fame) as Malcolm. Also…it was fun to see Ralph Ineson (the Captain that pretty much starts the show), Stephen Root (the Porter) and Jefferson Mayes (the Doctor) showing up in brief, one scene cameos along the way.
But, special notice needs to be paid to Kathryn Hunter (the Witches) and Alex Hassell (Ross) who elevate both of these roles to something more than I’ve seen previously. Sure, the Witches…with such speeches as “Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble”…are the “showey” roles in this script, but in the hands of veteran Stage Actor Hunter, it turns into something much, much more. Cohen does more with the Witches than I’ve seen previously done and it works well - quite possibly to the tune of an Academy Award Nomination as Best Supporting Actress for her. Also working well is the use of the character Ross as sort of an “agent” of the Witches. This role, as written by The Bard of Avon, is pretty much a throw away, but Cohen uses it as something more and Hassell delivers the goods in an interesting way.
So, if the acting is good, the setting appropriately mysterious and the Direction generally strong, why did I not connect more with this film? I think it falls to the adaptation of the play by Mr. Cohen. By necessity, he pares down the film and it feels like it just jumps from speech to speech. As I’ve said earlier, each speech is terrific and the performers present these words very, very well, but they didn’t coalesce into anything whole that I could get emotionally attached to. This film is an “abridged” version of the Scottish play and it shows, Cohen opts to keep in the speeches (as is necessary) but that comes at the cost of losing the scenes between characters that would more strongly tie this film apart.
It’s still a worthy entry in the “Shakespeare on Film” canon - and one that is “above average” but falls far short of greatness - kind of like Macbeth himself.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Jamie (131 KP) rated An Eccentric Engagement in Books
May 24, 2017
Sweet romance (1 more)
Good commentary about social justice
Does more telling than showing (1 more)
Felt more like a lecture than a love story
A sweet regency romance
So this was a bit of a non-traditional romance as it takes place after the courtship. Sorrow and Bertram are engaged to be married and the two return to Sorrow’s country home for the wedding. The two are very clearly in the early stages of excitement over a new relationship, stealing kissing and admiring each other — the “puppy love” stage. Neither of the two truly love each other but are already prepared for marriage. The actual romance was more told than shown and it unfortunately just didn’t work for me. The romantic aspect seemed to take a back seat to the other two major plot lines: Sorrow’s altruistic family and Bert’s difficult relationship with his overbearing father.
Both of these plot lines are actually really good, but I felt that they both needed more time to be developed and would have been better in a full length novel. All of the conflict was resolved in a few pages with barely any resistance and the discussion felt more like a lecture that was repeated multiple times. Not that the message was bad, I appreciated the way they approach discussing the mentally ill and the elderly, and I actually liked the Marchand’s way of life, but I think it could have been delivered better.
It also didn’t help that Sorrow kind of annoyed me. When she talks to other people to try and explain her views it again turns into a mildly pretentious lecture. Her insistence on absolute harmony and willingness to throw everything out of the window if she didn’t get her way was also extremely grating. Creating needless drama for the sake of drama is not a good way of filling up pages.
Overall its not bad, it’s a cute and clean love story that will appeal to folks with a strong sense of social justice. It was a fluffy and pleasant way to pass the time, but I didn’t feel much of anything while reading it.
Both of these plot lines are actually really good, but I felt that they both needed more time to be developed and would have been better in a full length novel. All of the conflict was resolved in a few pages with barely any resistance and the discussion felt more like a lecture that was repeated multiple times. Not that the message was bad, I appreciated the way they approach discussing the mentally ill and the elderly, and I actually liked the Marchand’s way of life, but I think it could have been delivered better.
It also didn’t help that Sorrow kind of annoyed me. When she talks to other people to try and explain her views it again turns into a mildly pretentious lecture. Her insistence on absolute harmony and willingness to throw everything out of the window if she didn’t get her way was also extremely grating. Creating needless drama for the sake of drama is not a good way of filling up pages.
Overall its not bad, it’s a cute and clean love story that will appeal to folks with a strong sense of social justice. It was a fluffy and pleasant way to pass the time, but I didn’t feel much of anything while reading it.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Feed Your Athlete: A Cookbook to Fuel High Performance in Books
Apr 27, 2018
I am extremely impressed by this book. The sheer amount of work that went into making this such a valuable tool will, I hope, bounce back to benefit many people.
This is not just a cookbook. This is a reference book. The book starts with a rundown of the different kinds of athletes and their specific dietary needs (with constant reminder that everyone is different and you should check with your doctor or dietician to confirm diet changes). Then it provides practical's on how to meet those needs. Not just recipes (that are all divided up by high or low fiber, low fat, high carb, and high protein) but also meal plans, detailed appendix, water replacement recipes, recovery meals and drinks, and even athlete-friendly deserts. It covers how to determine how many calories you need, how to balance your energy, measure your BMI and BFP, and eating for each stage of training, up through recovery from a performance or event.
The recipes themselves are detailed and easy to follow, and most of them fall into the Easy category (which automatically gives it a plus). It includes a rundown of the categories, prep time, ingredients, yield, make ahead and freeze plans, substitutions in case you want to make it gluten-free or vegetarian, and the breakdown of nutrition information.
There were a few recipes, mostly baking recipes like muffins and breads, that I thought could have used less sugar. There are lots of ways to substitute sugar, oil, and eggs by using things like avocado, apple sauce, peanut butter, honey, agave, etc. and I thought there could have been more of that happening. There were a few drinks that seemed like they had too much sugar in them as well. Sugar really is an athlete’s poison (actually it’s everyone’s poison). And honestly I don’t see how a fudge pop with pudding and whipped topping as the only ingredients belong in a healthy athlete cookbook. But even including those few recipes, this book still blew me away. It should be a staple in every health-conscious home, and every athlete’s shelf.
This is not just a cookbook. This is a reference book. The book starts with a rundown of the different kinds of athletes and their specific dietary needs (with constant reminder that everyone is different and you should check with your doctor or dietician to confirm diet changes). Then it provides practical's on how to meet those needs. Not just recipes (that are all divided up by high or low fiber, low fat, high carb, and high protein) but also meal plans, detailed appendix, water replacement recipes, recovery meals and drinks, and even athlete-friendly deserts. It covers how to determine how many calories you need, how to balance your energy, measure your BMI and BFP, and eating for each stage of training, up through recovery from a performance or event.
The recipes themselves are detailed and easy to follow, and most of them fall into the Easy category (which automatically gives it a plus). It includes a rundown of the categories, prep time, ingredients, yield, make ahead and freeze plans, substitutions in case you want to make it gluten-free or vegetarian, and the breakdown of nutrition information.
There were a few recipes, mostly baking recipes like muffins and breads, that I thought could have used less sugar. There are lots of ways to substitute sugar, oil, and eggs by using things like avocado, apple sauce, peanut butter, honey, agave, etc. and I thought there could have been more of that happening. There were a few drinks that seemed like they had too much sugar in them as well. Sugar really is an athlete’s poison (actually it’s everyone’s poison). And honestly I don’t see how a fudge pop with pudding and whipped topping as the only ingredients belong in a healthy athlete cookbook. But even including those few recipes, this book still blew me away. It should be a staple in every health-conscious home, and every athlete’s shelf.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated A Sherlock Holmes Devotional: Uncovering the Mysteries of God in Books
Apr 27, 2018
Every once in a while I read a book that is just trying way too hard to be cool. Sadly, this is one of those books.
Sherlock Holmes was an amazing detective. The Bible is an amazing book. So why not make a Sherlock Holmes devotional? The answer is because the two are about totally different things, and when you try to make a secular thing spiritual, you end up with poison.
I requested this book with suspicion (the same publisher had a bunch of other awesome-looking books, and this was the only one I was iffy about), but I hoped it would surprise and maybe impress me. Sadly, it’s actually worse than I imagined.
For example: The first devotional is about the Case of the Cardboard Box, where a woman has a package delivered to her with two severed ears. The devotional goes on to praise Sherlock for solving the crime, and then diverts to “We can hear the voice of God. Sherlock said the ear is amazing. See how these two are connected?” And yes obviously that’s a paraphrase. But it was the point of the devotional.
In staying in this same idea, let me tell you a story and give you a practical on how it made me feel.
Did you know in the Appalachian mountains, some people put Mountain Dew in their babies bottles? It’s cheaper than milk and the kids get addicted to it young. Obviously it causes major health issues like diabetes and sever obesity, the kids end up loosing their teeth before they even break skin, and (though I haven’t researched it, I’m sure) that some have died.
In the same way, the Bible tells us that newer Christians thrive on smaller amounts of doctrine, simple statements of truth. In the new testament, a Christian not moving past that stage is considered an adult still drinking baby milk. But the milk isn’t enough, and eventually, their faith will die if they don’t move forward. So Mountain Dew is like Baby Milk. See how the two are connected?
Sorry, but this book isn’t baby food. It’s poison. I love Sherlock and I love Jesus. But I find this book offensive
Sherlock Holmes was an amazing detective. The Bible is an amazing book. So why not make a Sherlock Holmes devotional? The answer is because the two are about totally different things, and when you try to make a secular thing spiritual, you end up with poison.
I requested this book with suspicion (the same publisher had a bunch of other awesome-looking books, and this was the only one I was iffy about), but I hoped it would surprise and maybe impress me. Sadly, it’s actually worse than I imagined.
For example: The first devotional is about the Case of the Cardboard Box, where a woman has a package delivered to her with two severed ears. The devotional goes on to praise Sherlock for solving the crime, and then diverts to “We can hear the voice of God. Sherlock said the ear is amazing. See how these two are connected?” And yes obviously that’s a paraphrase. But it was the point of the devotional.
In staying in this same idea, let me tell you a story and give you a practical on how it made me feel.
Did you know in the Appalachian mountains, some people put Mountain Dew in their babies bottles? It’s cheaper than milk and the kids get addicted to it young. Obviously it causes major health issues like diabetes and sever obesity, the kids end up loosing their teeth before they even break skin, and (though I haven’t researched it, I’m sure) that some have died.
In the same way, the Bible tells us that newer Christians thrive on smaller amounts of doctrine, simple statements of truth. In the new testament, a Christian not moving past that stage is considered an adult still drinking baby milk. But the milk isn’t enough, and eventually, their faith will die if they don’t move forward. So Mountain Dew is like Baby Milk. See how the two are connected?
Sorry, but this book isn’t baby food. It’s poison. I love Sherlock and I love Jesus. But I find this book offensive