Search
Search results
The Gourmands’ Way: Six Americans in Paris and the Birth of a New Gastronomy
Book
“In The Gourmands’ Way, Justin Spring brilliantly recounts the French odyssey of six remarkable...
Biography food
Titan: The Life of John D. Rockerfeller, Sr.
Book
"John D. Rockefeller, Sr. history's first billionaire and the patriarch of America's most famous...
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 7, 2019
An unapologetic masterpiece.
I wasn't sure what to expect going into this film. I'm a huge comic book fan, so the controversy and scepticism surrounding this movie, as well as the fact it's based within an established story world, had me doubting how it would work and how good the execution of it would be.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
Mothergamer (1558 KP) rated The Green Hornet (2011) in Movies
Apr 3, 2019
I don't even have the words for how infuriated I am right now with The Green Hornet film. There's a small part of me that wishes I could just throw a brick at Seth Rogen's crotch right now, because he absolutely deserves it along with director Michael Gondry. That's right, the director of the film Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind which to me was a good movie is responsible for this equally terrible movie.
I do feel much of the blame lies with the fact that Seth Rogen co-wrote this screenplay and he claimed that he was so glad he didn't screw up one of his favorite childhood heroes. Seth, Seth, Seth....tsk tsk, someone's a dirty rotten liar Seth. Why must you constantly lie to us Seth? The truth is you messed up completely! In the original radio show, comics, and T.V. Show Britt Reid wasn't a moron. He was a smart successful newspaper publisher, he was confident, and he could fight well alongside his equally confident sidekick Kato. I loved the T.V. show and I loved the comic. I loved watching The Green Hornet on Kung Fu Saturday when I was a kid. That was the highlight of my Saturday. I would watch a couple of episodes of The Green Hornet and then watch the featured kung fu film. That's a sacred childhood memory and you, Seth Rogen along with your director have pissed all over it.
Not only did you make Britt Reid a total jerk, you made him stupid too! He loosely based Britt Reid on Paris Hilton? Are you kidding me with this nonsense?
Seth Rogen's Britt Reid is a spoiled rich brat who shows no interest in running the newspaper, but he instead becomes buddies with Kato his mechanic and coffee maker. I felt bad for Jay Chou because he's no Bruce Lee, but he did alright in spite of Seth Rogen constantly hyperventilating and shouting in every scene. He tried, he really did. Cameron Diaz's role as Reid's secretary Lenore Case is completely useless. She's basically camera filler with a great smile.
Of course, The Green Hornet has to have a villain and that is Christoph Waltz (Oscar winner from Inglorious Basterds) as Chudnofsky, but there is no depth to the character which proves bad writing is bad writing. Now I like action scenes as much as the next person, but it's as if Seth Rogen got bored and just added as much action as possible as filler rather than having an actual plot that tells the story. There's also so much pointless dialogue, watching this train wreck of a film is like being stuck in a dentist's chair having a root canal with no anesthesia. Yes, it's that damn bad. Not even the overpriced 3-D could save this film. That is just a gimmick to get more money out of people and this film proved that point real quick.
There is so much that could have been done to make this film version of the T.V. show great, but none of it was done. Instead, we get a film that is so terrible with no plot at all, a fake Britt Reid (I don't care what you say Rogen, that character you played was NOT Britt Reid! You are a liar sir!), a subdued Kato that got overshadowed by the crazy rich brat, a useless vapid secretary, and a villain that's about as threatening as a labradoodle. Seth Rogen and Michale Gondry you should be ashamed and embarrassed that your names are on this piece of trash.
Don't waste your money on this folks and certainly don't waste it on 3-D. The original is better and I'm sure that Mr. Rogen's going to have several bricks thrown at his crotch for even writing this awful screenplay. Just please, do us a favor and go sit in the corner with M. Night Shyamalan and quit making movies, because you really screwed the pooch on this one pal.
I do feel much of the blame lies with the fact that Seth Rogen co-wrote this screenplay and he claimed that he was so glad he didn't screw up one of his favorite childhood heroes. Seth, Seth, Seth....tsk tsk, someone's a dirty rotten liar Seth. Why must you constantly lie to us Seth? The truth is you messed up completely! In the original radio show, comics, and T.V. Show Britt Reid wasn't a moron. He was a smart successful newspaper publisher, he was confident, and he could fight well alongside his equally confident sidekick Kato. I loved the T.V. show and I loved the comic. I loved watching The Green Hornet on Kung Fu Saturday when I was a kid. That was the highlight of my Saturday. I would watch a couple of episodes of The Green Hornet and then watch the featured kung fu film. That's a sacred childhood memory and you, Seth Rogen along with your director have pissed all over it.
Not only did you make Britt Reid a total jerk, you made him stupid too! He loosely based Britt Reid on Paris Hilton? Are you kidding me with this nonsense?
Seth Rogen's Britt Reid is a spoiled rich brat who shows no interest in running the newspaper, but he instead becomes buddies with Kato his mechanic and coffee maker. I felt bad for Jay Chou because he's no Bruce Lee, but he did alright in spite of Seth Rogen constantly hyperventilating and shouting in every scene. He tried, he really did. Cameron Diaz's role as Reid's secretary Lenore Case is completely useless. She's basically camera filler with a great smile.
Of course, The Green Hornet has to have a villain and that is Christoph Waltz (Oscar winner from Inglorious Basterds) as Chudnofsky, but there is no depth to the character which proves bad writing is bad writing. Now I like action scenes as much as the next person, but it's as if Seth Rogen got bored and just added as much action as possible as filler rather than having an actual plot that tells the story. There's also so much pointless dialogue, watching this train wreck of a film is like being stuck in a dentist's chair having a root canal with no anesthesia. Yes, it's that damn bad. Not even the overpriced 3-D could save this film. That is just a gimmick to get more money out of people and this film proved that point real quick.
There is so much that could have been done to make this film version of the T.V. show great, but none of it was done. Instead, we get a film that is so terrible with no plot at all, a fake Britt Reid (I don't care what you say Rogen, that character you played was NOT Britt Reid! You are a liar sir!), a subdued Kato that got overshadowed by the crazy rich brat, a useless vapid secretary, and a villain that's about as threatening as a labradoodle. Seth Rogen and Michale Gondry you should be ashamed and embarrassed that your names are on this piece of trash.
Don't waste your money on this folks and certainly don't waste it on 3-D. The original is better and I'm sure that Mr. Rogen's going to have several bricks thrown at his crotch for even writing this awful screenplay. Just please, do us a favor and go sit in the corner with M. Night Shyamalan and quit making movies, because you really screwed the pooch on this one pal.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Jan 3, 2020 (Updated Jan 3, 2020)
Saoirse Ronan - just mesmeric. What screen presence! (2 more)
Great supporting cast.
Alexandre Desplat soundtrack.
"God hasn't met my will yet"
Greta Gerwig's follow up to her Oscar-praised "Lady Bird" from 2017 looks set to repeat the job this year. For it's nothing short of a masterpiece of cinema.
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated She Was The Quiet One in Books
Mar 11, 2019
Interesting read if a bit predictable
After the death of their mother, twins Rose and Bel Enright wind up at Odell Academy in New Hampshire. They are sent by their wealthy grandmother, who has no idea what to do with the teenagers now foisted upon her. Rose is the good twin--good grades, good friends, good behavior. Bel, on the other hand, is known for going a bit wild. But it was Bel their mother favored--much to Rose's consternation. Floundering after the loss of their mother, Bel winds up with the wrong crowd at school and then turns on Rose when she calls her out on it. Meanwhile, Heath and Sarah Donovan have been brought in to clean up Moreland Hall, the dormitory where the twins are staying. It has developed a reputation for trouble. It's a daunting task, especially since so many of the girls come from storied, rich Odell families. Both Sarah and Heath are Moreland alums--they met at the school--and not all of their memories are pleasant. As for Heath, his dreams extend far beyond teaching high school English. But something in his past holds him back; he's hoping to parlay their time at Moreland into something more. But soon things at Moreland--and Odell--are out of control, with the Enright twins and the Donovans right in the middle of all the trouble.
From the beginning of the novel, we immediately know that an Enright sister is dead, but not which one. The narration from Bel, Rose, and Sarah is interspersed with snippets from police interviews, as we try to piece together exactly what happened to lead to murder. This was perhaps my favorite part of the story--trying to figure out who had been killed--and why the other sister is the prime suspect. The format of the novel is very well-done and extremely compelling.
In the beginning, some of the dialogue seemed stilted: I couldn't imagine the sisters really talking to each other in particular ways, for instance. Rose and Bel's instant fighting seemed rash, and it was hard to take. In fact, the entire boarding school drama seemed a little too much, at times. I understand the fact that girls can quickly turn on each other--especially when they all live together--but the twins threatening to kill each other over a sweater? It was tough and it was a lot of drama, so fast, so often. Rose was incredibly prissy and tough to like for a lot of the novel. And then poor Sarah, who was such a doormat, with an incredible lack of judgement--she was a hard character to find sympathy for as well.
The novel also seemed to march toward a fairly inevitable conclusion. I kept waiting for a big twist or surprise to throw me off and while the epilogue offered a little bit of that, there really wasn't much. The book focuses more on the unraveling of the families than twists and turns, and that was a little disappointing for me. I like to be thrown off the trail a few times.
Still, I really enjoyed the format of this one: wondering and waiting to find out who was dead, along with the pieces from the interviews. I liked the boarding school setting and how it added to the story. While I didn't always enjoy all the characters, I really came to feel for for Bel Enright, and I did sympathize with Rose, as well. Even if things were fairly predictable, Campbell kept me reading and interested the entire time. 3+ stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
From the beginning of the novel, we immediately know that an Enright sister is dead, but not which one. The narration from Bel, Rose, and Sarah is interspersed with snippets from police interviews, as we try to piece together exactly what happened to lead to murder. This was perhaps my favorite part of the story--trying to figure out who had been killed--and why the other sister is the prime suspect. The format of the novel is very well-done and extremely compelling.
In the beginning, some of the dialogue seemed stilted: I couldn't imagine the sisters really talking to each other in particular ways, for instance. Rose and Bel's instant fighting seemed rash, and it was hard to take. In fact, the entire boarding school drama seemed a little too much, at times. I understand the fact that girls can quickly turn on each other--especially when they all live together--but the twins threatening to kill each other over a sweater? It was tough and it was a lot of drama, so fast, so often. Rose was incredibly prissy and tough to like for a lot of the novel. And then poor Sarah, who was such a doormat, with an incredible lack of judgement--she was a hard character to find sympathy for as well.
The novel also seemed to march toward a fairly inevitable conclusion. I kept waiting for a big twist or surprise to throw me off and while the epilogue offered a little bit of that, there really wasn't much. The book focuses more on the unraveling of the families than twists and turns, and that was a little disappointing for me. I like to be thrown off the trail a few times.
Still, I really enjoyed the format of this one: wondering and waiting to find out who was dead, along with the pieces from the interviews. I liked the boarding school setting and how it added to the story. While I didn't always enjoy all the characters, I really came to feel for for Bel Enright, and I did sympathize with Rose, as well. Even if things were fairly predictable, Campbell kept me reading and interested the entire time. 3+ stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Wreck-It-Ralph (2012) in Movies
May 20, 2019
Underrated Masterpiece
Trying to prove his worth, star video game bad guy Ralph (John C. Reilly) goes on a quest to earn a medal and show the world he’s actually good.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
The intro is everything you want for the start of a movie. It builds a beautiful world while getting you immersed in it at the same time. I loved how the characters are introduced in true video game style fashion. By the time you see the characters ending their shift and stepping out of their games to go home, you already feel like you are a part of the world. The Bad Guys Anonymous meeting Ralph attends is easily one of my favorite scenes done in a movie. Just seeing the characters from my childhood talking about what it was like being a bad guy just puts a smile on my face everytime I watch it.
Characters: 10
Ralph is someone you can easily sympathize with as he really doesn’t seem like that bad of a guy. He’s gotten a bad rap because of his job but you watch him giving away fruit to lesser characters whose games have been unplugged and you can’t help but like the guy. Outside of Ralph, the sheer number of video game characters they were able to include was just plain amazing. It’s eye candy for both older and newer generations. The supporting cast will keep you entertained as well from Fix-it Felix (Jack McBrayer) who is a stickler for doing the right thing to Vanellope Von Schweetz (Sarah Silverman), a crazy game glitch that’s also on a quest to earn a medal. There is no shortage of depth or originality.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Genre: 10
I’ll stand by this statement and I’ll fight anyone on it: Because of it’s originality, visuals, and message, Wreck-it Ralph is not only one of the greatest animated films of all time, but one of the greatest films of all time. Period. It sets a new bar for animated movies from top to bottom. Every single time i watch it, I find something different to appreciate.
Memorability: 10
In one scene, Ralph finds himself in the middle of a Starship Trooper-esque battle fighting alien bugs and trying to make it to the top of a tower. It’s such an amazing scene to watch and one of my favorites…until, that is, I make it to the next scene where that one becomes my favorite. From one wild ride to the next, no moment is wasted in this movie. Neither is one easily forgotten. The movie also packs a beautiful message about embracing who you are in spite of your weaknesses.
Pace: 10
As I mentioned earlier, the movie makes full use of its time as it moves quickly from one scene to the next, never lingering. Where I find myself saying “Get to the point already” when I watch a lot of movies, director Rich More manages the pace excellently. Even during slower moments where Ralph and Vanellope are bantering back and forth, the movie forces you to have a good time.
Plot: 10
Video game stories are typically very linear but that isn’t a problem in the least with Wreck-it Ralph. There are enough twists and turns to renew your interest and keep you entertained. Each character was handled perfectly, given just enough screen time to impact the movie in their own way. Each piece of story is carefully crafted and never breaks the laws of the world in which the story takes place.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 100
What can I say? Some reviewers give perfect scores to Citizen Kane. I give them to movies like Wreck-it Ralph, movies that remind us of what watching movies is all about: Escape and having fun. Wreck-it Ralph will wow you, make you cheer, and leave you with enough memories to last ages.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
The intro is everything you want for the start of a movie. It builds a beautiful world while getting you immersed in it at the same time. I loved how the characters are introduced in true video game style fashion. By the time you see the characters ending their shift and stepping out of their games to go home, you already feel like you are a part of the world. The Bad Guys Anonymous meeting Ralph attends is easily one of my favorite scenes done in a movie. Just seeing the characters from my childhood talking about what it was like being a bad guy just puts a smile on my face everytime I watch it.
Characters: 10
Ralph is someone you can easily sympathize with as he really doesn’t seem like that bad of a guy. He’s gotten a bad rap because of his job but you watch him giving away fruit to lesser characters whose games have been unplugged and you can’t help but like the guy. Outside of Ralph, the sheer number of video game characters they were able to include was just plain amazing. It’s eye candy for both older and newer generations. The supporting cast will keep you entertained as well from Fix-it Felix (Jack McBrayer) who is a stickler for doing the right thing to Vanellope Von Schweetz (Sarah Silverman), a crazy game glitch that’s also on a quest to earn a medal. There is no shortage of depth or originality.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Genre: 10
I’ll stand by this statement and I’ll fight anyone on it: Because of it’s originality, visuals, and message, Wreck-it Ralph is not only one of the greatest animated films of all time, but one of the greatest films of all time. Period. It sets a new bar for animated movies from top to bottom. Every single time i watch it, I find something different to appreciate.
Memorability: 10
In one scene, Ralph finds himself in the middle of a Starship Trooper-esque battle fighting alien bugs and trying to make it to the top of a tower. It’s such an amazing scene to watch and one of my favorites…until, that is, I make it to the next scene where that one becomes my favorite. From one wild ride to the next, no moment is wasted in this movie. Neither is one easily forgotten. The movie also packs a beautiful message about embracing who you are in spite of your weaknesses.
Pace: 10
As I mentioned earlier, the movie makes full use of its time as it moves quickly from one scene to the next, never lingering. Where I find myself saying “Get to the point already” when I watch a lot of movies, director Rich More manages the pace excellently. Even during slower moments where Ralph and Vanellope are bantering back and forth, the movie forces you to have a good time.
Plot: 10
Video game stories are typically very linear but that isn’t a problem in the least with Wreck-it Ralph. There are enough twists and turns to renew your interest and keep you entertained. Each character was handled perfectly, given just enough screen time to impact the movie in their own way. Each piece of story is carefully crafted and never breaks the laws of the world in which the story takes place.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 100
What can I say? Some reviewers give perfect scores to Citizen Kane. I give them to movies like Wreck-it Ralph, movies that remind us of what watching movies is all about: Escape and having fun. Wreck-it Ralph will wow you, make you cheer, and leave you with enough memories to last ages.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Up (2009) in Movies
May 30, 2019
A Movie That Never Stumbles Towards its End Goal.
After the death of his wife (tear), Carl Fredericksen (Edward Asner) decides to tie a bunch of balloons to his house and fly off on a great adventure. He gets more than what he bargained for when he realizes he won’t be alone on this adventure.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Up has more power in its first twelve minutes than most films do in their entire runtime. I can watch this a dozen times and it still hits me the same exact way. It tells the story of the relationship between Carl and Ellie in all of its highs and lows. You will be hard-pressed to find a better beginning than this throughout the history of movies. There’s something so real and heartfelt about it that sucks you in and sets up Carl’s character perfectly.
Characters: 10
Life has turned Carl into a cranky old man whose everything hurts all the time. He takes no guff and, at the end of the day, just wants to be left alone. He is one of numerous rich characters than shine throughout the movie, both animal and human alike. Young boyscout Russell (Jordan Nagai) puts a smile on my face with every single scene that he’s in. He’s always willing to go above and beyond to help. So inquisitive, yet so clueless. Throw in Doug the talking dog and the awesome Snipe and you have the perfect mix of original characters you want to root for.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
I was blown away by the amazing visuals Up has to offer. So many colors shoot out at you as you see the balloons hovering over Carl’s house for the first time. The house floats into Paradise Falls after surviving a wicked storm and you’re treated to just that—Paradise. Canyons and a tropical rainforest full of lush greenery. The detail that went into this animation is outstanding.
Conflict: 10
There is plenty of action to be had on this great adventure. What starts as an innocent trip is quickly disrupted by a storm that turns everything upside down. The adventure soars to new heights after that, never really slowing down much for you to check on the time. Beginnings are important, but middles even moreso, and the events that unfold during the meat of the film are fun and harrowing at the same time.
Genre: 10
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Up is like riding a smooth wave. Some moments are more intense than others, but you’re always headed towards an end goal of sorts. Bad pacing is filled with road blocks and unnecessary scenes, but Up manages to maximize its full runtime by making every single moment count.
Plot: 10
A beautiful story that couldn’t have been told in a more beautiful way. It’s fun and unique, definitely something you haven’t seen before. I honestly can’t think of a better way it could have been done.
Resolution: 10
I’m one of the few weirdos who was touched just as much by the ending as I was the beginning. It makes you happy to see what befalls the characters, yet a bit sad as you realize the movie is reaching its conclusion. At the end, Up doesn’t linger. It does what it needs to do and concludes perfectly.
Overall: 100
There is a reason Up is one of three animated movies nominated for Best Picture. It is one of the greatest movies ever made and tops my all-time list as of 5/30/2019. Noticed I didn’t say “one of the greatest animated movies”, but one of the greatest MOVIES. It’s an all-timer driven by great character relationships and powerful, emotion-filled scenes.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Up has more power in its first twelve minutes than most films do in their entire runtime. I can watch this a dozen times and it still hits me the same exact way. It tells the story of the relationship between Carl and Ellie in all of its highs and lows. You will be hard-pressed to find a better beginning than this throughout the history of movies. There’s something so real and heartfelt about it that sucks you in and sets up Carl’s character perfectly.
Characters: 10
Life has turned Carl into a cranky old man whose everything hurts all the time. He takes no guff and, at the end of the day, just wants to be left alone. He is one of numerous rich characters than shine throughout the movie, both animal and human alike. Young boyscout Russell (Jordan Nagai) puts a smile on my face with every single scene that he’s in. He’s always willing to go above and beyond to help. So inquisitive, yet so clueless. Throw in Doug the talking dog and the awesome Snipe and you have the perfect mix of original characters you want to root for.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
I was blown away by the amazing visuals Up has to offer. So many colors shoot out at you as you see the balloons hovering over Carl’s house for the first time. The house floats into Paradise Falls after surviving a wicked storm and you’re treated to just that—Paradise. Canyons and a tropical rainforest full of lush greenery. The detail that went into this animation is outstanding.
Conflict: 10
There is plenty of action to be had on this great adventure. What starts as an innocent trip is quickly disrupted by a storm that turns everything upside down. The adventure soars to new heights after that, never really slowing down much for you to check on the time. Beginnings are important, but middles even moreso, and the events that unfold during the meat of the film are fun and harrowing at the same time.
Genre: 10
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Up is like riding a smooth wave. Some moments are more intense than others, but you’re always headed towards an end goal of sorts. Bad pacing is filled with road blocks and unnecessary scenes, but Up manages to maximize its full runtime by making every single moment count.
Plot: 10
A beautiful story that couldn’t have been told in a more beautiful way. It’s fun and unique, definitely something you haven’t seen before. I honestly can’t think of a better way it could have been done.
Resolution: 10
I’m one of the few weirdos who was touched just as much by the ending as I was the beginning. It makes you happy to see what befalls the characters, yet a bit sad as you realize the movie is reaching its conclusion. At the end, Up doesn’t linger. It does what it needs to do and concludes perfectly.
Overall: 100
There is a reason Up is one of three animated movies nominated for Best Picture. It is one of the greatest movies ever made and tops my all-time list as of 5/30/2019. Noticed I didn’t say “one of the greatest animated movies”, but one of the greatest MOVIES. It’s an all-timer driven by great character relationships and powerful, emotion-filled scenes.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Roma (2018) in Movies
Jan 16, 2019
A lush and beautiful memory
Alfonso Cuaron - the magnificent Director from Mexico who directed such big Hollywood hits as HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN (the best HP flick, IMHO) and GRAVITY (one of the best films of 2013, IMHO) has made a little "personal" film that was financed and released by Netflix. Netflix, in their wisdom, realized they might have an Oscar contender on it's hands, so has released ROMA in limited release to Theaters (mostly Art Houses) and...in some instances...you can catch a 70mm print of this film. Or...you can watch it on your TV via your Netflix subscription.
I would highly recommend checking this film out at your local movie theater house and, if you are lucky enough to have a theater that is showing the 70mm print, I would tell you to run...don't walk...to check this out.
For ROMA is a beautifully filmed Black and White film, in Spanish (with English subtitles) that tells a very personal story of a family in Mexico City in the early 1970's - as seen through the eyes of their house maid. This story is based (according to what I have read) on Cuaron's own childhood and he has lovingly, beautifully recreated this world and populated it with some interesting characters/experiences.
It is also languidly paced (read: slow) and - if I am honest about it - not much happens. So if you add languid pace with black and white photography with Spanish language (and English subtitles) with not much in the way of plot or action, your attention span will be stretched and, I'm afraid, if you're home, you will be tempted to be distracted by your phone, the dog, the dishes, a magazine, etc...
And that would be a shame, for I fell in love with this film, the beauty of the cinematography and the slow pace of it all and I think you will too if you give it a chance.
Cuaron, most certainly, will be nominated for an Oscar for his writing and directing of this piece - and I am sure that this film will be nominated for Best Picture (and deservedly so), but it is in two other places that I was entranced by ROMA. I have mentioned the first - the Cinematography. This film is a shoo-in for a Best Cinematography Oscar, the black and white is lush and rich throughout the film and adds to the memory-style idealized world that Cuaron has put on screen. So, the Best Cinematography Oscar should go to...Alfonso Cuaron.
The other area that I am surprised to say worked very well for me is the performances of the cast, all Mexican actors, unknown to U.S. audiences. Standing out most notably are Marina de Tavira as the matriarch of the family, Senora Sofia and, most surprisingly, Yalitza Aparicio as the focal point of this film, Cleo. Her part is mostly mute (or at least mute for me, for I don't speak Spanish) so the emotions I felt coming from her were brought forth through her facial features, looks and reactions, much more than what she says. I would be fine with either of these two getting an Oscar nomination.
Despite a slow start - and a slow pace throughout this film - and not much going on, I was entranced and enthralled by the world that Cuaron put on screen. A world that exists, mostly, in Cuaron's memory and that, now, exists for us to see in this wonderful film.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I would highly recommend checking this film out at your local movie theater house and, if you are lucky enough to have a theater that is showing the 70mm print, I would tell you to run...don't walk...to check this out.
For ROMA is a beautifully filmed Black and White film, in Spanish (with English subtitles) that tells a very personal story of a family in Mexico City in the early 1970's - as seen through the eyes of their house maid. This story is based (according to what I have read) on Cuaron's own childhood and he has lovingly, beautifully recreated this world and populated it with some interesting characters/experiences.
It is also languidly paced (read: slow) and - if I am honest about it - not much happens. So if you add languid pace with black and white photography with Spanish language (and English subtitles) with not much in the way of plot or action, your attention span will be stretched and, I'm afraid, if you're home, you will be tempted to be distracted by your phone, the dog, the dishes, a magazine, etc...
And that would be a shame, for I fell in love with this film, the beauty of the cinematography and the slow pace of it all and I think you will too if you give it a chance.
Cuaron, most certainly, will be nominated for an Oscar for his writing and directing of this piece - and I am sure that this film will be nominated for Best Picture (and deservedly so), but it is in two other places that I was entranced by ROMA. I have mentioned the first - the Cinematography. This film is a shoo-in for a Best Cinematography Oscar, the black and white is lush and rich throughout the film and adds to the memory-style idealized world that Cuaron has put on screen. So, the Best Cinematography Oscar should go to...Alfonso Cuaron.
The other area that I am surprised to say worked very well for me is the performances of the cast, all Mexican actors, unknown to U.S. audiences. Standing out most notably are Marina de Tavira as the matriarch of the family, Senora Sofia and, most surprisingly, Yalitza Aparicio as the focal point of this film, Cleo. Her part is mostly mute (or at least mute for me, for I don't speak Spanish) so the emotions I felt coming from her were brought forth through her facial features, looks and reactions, much more than what she says. I would be fine with either of these two getting an Oscar nomination.
Despite a slow start - and a slow pace throughout this film - and not much going on, I was entranced and enthralled by the world that Cuaron put on screen. A world that exists, mostly, in Cuaron's memory and that, now, exists for us to see in this wonderful film.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
