Search
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Philadelphia Story (1940) in Movies
Sep 14, 2019
It's as good (maybe better) than you've heard
We all know of movies that you hear are considered a "classic", but you've never seen, and the few clips of the film you've seen does not, exactly, motivate you to check out the entire film. THE PHILADELPHIA STORY was one such film for me. This 1940 George Cukor production is lauded for it's dialogue, direction and the stellar performances of the cast - particularly the 3 leads, Katherine Hepburn, Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart.
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977) in Movies
Apr 20, 2017
The beginning of an era that will last a life time (3 more)
Character
Special Effects
Movie Score that is highly recognizable
Han Shot First!!!
Star Wars...the movie no one believed would become anywhere close to the success it is today. Not even George Lucas believed it would be as big as it is, but that's the beauty of it.
Star Wars wasn't just the beginning of a new fandom, it was also the beginning of a new era for film itself. Skywalker Sound revolutionized special sound effects and and the CGI used in Star Wars (during it's original release) made directors like Steven Spielberg realise they can bring their dreams to life, such as the film Jurassic Park which then revolutionized film even further.
Introducing new and original characters such as Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia, Han Solo, Chewbacca, Darth Vader and so many more! The film introduced the strong female role model in what is actually a kid's film. Carrie Fisher portrayed Princess Leia and there has never been anyone quite as brilliant as her since, because at only 19 years old during the first film, she became an icon and one of the strongest woman on screen.
All 3 of the main cast went on to take on great roles. Mark Hamill is probably most famous for his voice over work in cartoon shows such as Batman the Animated series where he has become the most famous voice for The Joker, taking on the role multiple times including in the Batman Arkham video games. Harrison Ford went on to star in many famous roles in big blockbuster films such as Indiana Jones, Apocalypse Now, Blade Runner and many more. Carrie Fisher went on to star in When Harry Met Sally, Drop Dead Fred, and Scream 3.
The villain of the film quickly became one of the most badass and recognizable villains to ever appear on the big screen...Darth Vader! He was menacing, manipulative, and powerful.
The visuals of this film were incredible for the time, from the space battles to the lightsabers. Not to mention that a lot of the space ships, and the death star trench are all models with actual (mini) explosions.
Star Wars is so popular these days that it has been parodied and praised by countless other films, TV shows, sketches, art, porn and almost anything you can think of.
It even has a holiday after it 'May the 4th be with you' (May the force be with you), now known simply as May the 4th. Along with conventions and celebrations, Star Wars has become more of a way of life for a lot of people and not just a fandom.
Star Wars wasn't just the beginning of a new fandom, it was also the beginning of a new era for film itself. Skywalker Sound revolutionized special sound effects and and the CGI used in Star Wars (during it's original release) made directors like Steven Spielberg realise they can bring their dreams to life, such as the film Jurassic Park which then revolutionized film even further.
Introducing new and original characters such as Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia, Han Solo, Chewbacca, Darth Vader and so many more! The film introduced the strong female role model in what is actually a kid's film. Carrie Fisher portrayed Princess Leia and there has never been anyone quite as brilliant as her since, because at only 19 years old during the first film, she became an icon and one of the strongest woman on screen.
All 3 of the main cast went on to take on great roles. Mark Hamill is probably most famous for his voice over work in cartoon shows such as Batman the Animated series where he has become the most famous voice for The Joker, taking on the role multiple times including in the Batman Arkham video games. Harrison Ford went on to star in many famous roles in big blockbuster films such as Indiana Jones, Apocalypse Now, Blade Runner and many more. Carrie Fisher went on to star in When Harry Met Sally, Drop Dead Fred, and Scream 3.
The villain of the film quickly became one of the most badass and recognizable villains to ever appear on the big screen...Darth Vader! He was menacing, manipulative, and powerful.
The visuals of this film were incredible for the time, from the space battles to the lightsabers. Not to mention that a lot of the space ships, and the death star trench are all models with actual (mini) explosions.
Star Wars is so popular these days that it has been parodied and praised by countless other films, TV shows, sketches, art, porn and almost anything you can think of.
It even has a holiday after it 'May the 4th be with you' (May the force be with you), now known simply as May the 4th. Along with conventions and celebrations, Star Wars has become more of a way of life for a lot of people and not just a fandom.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Arrival (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Thrilling from start to finish
Sci-fi seems to be having somewhat of a renaissance recently, that is, if you don’t count Independence Day: Resurgence which could’ve easily derailed the whole genre, never mind just the franchise.
What with last year’s The Martian, the rebirth of Star Wars and the upcoming Passengers, sci-fi is really getting its mojo back. The subject of this review, Arrival, has been hailed as a masterpiece across the Atlantic. But is it worthy of such a strong adjective?
From the director of Prisoners and Sicario; Arrival is not only one of the best sci-fi films of the last year, it’s up there with the genre’s greatest assets. We’re talking a Close Encounters level of good.
Linguistics professor Louise Banks (Amy Adams) leads an elite team of investigators when humongous spaceships touch down in 12 locations around the world. As nations teeter on the verge of global war, Banks and her crew must race against time to find a way to communicate with the extra-terrestrial visitors. Hoping to unravel the mystery, she takes a chance that could threaten her life and quite possibly all of mankind.
Amy Adams leads a pleasing cast that includes commanding turns from Forest Whitaker and Jeremy Renner but it is in our female protagonist that we find the most joy. Adams is fast becoming one of Hollywood’s best actresses and her complex character is superbly written and incredibly well acted.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is truly exceptional with the alien craft taking a backseat to sweeping landscapes from across the world. The focal point of the film, a lush and open Montana valley is filmed to a breath-taking standard especially during Arrival’s opening sequences.
When it comes to special effects, director Denis Villeneuve doesn’t bombard the audience with constant CGI, instead opting for a laidback approach. Even the aliens themselves are understated in their appearance. It’s also fair to say that the film is a slow-burner with very little in the way of action – though it manages to stay well-clear of becoming tedious.
In spite of all this though, Arrival’s greatest strength is its story. This is thinking person’s sci-fi that somehow manages to cement its themes with an emotional heft of gravitational proportions. Throughout the 114 minute running time, we’re constantly reminded of our characters and where it is they come from, something missing from the majority of mass-market blockbusters these days.
Overall, Arrival is more than worthy of an adjective like masterpiece. From it’s incredible story and beautiful cinematography to what is Amy Adams’ best performance to date, it’s a new classic for the sci-fi genre and well worth a watch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/11/11/thrilling-from-start-to-finish-arrival-review/
What with last year’s The Martian, the rebirth of Star Wars and the upcoming Passengers, sci-fi is really getting its mojo back. The subject of this review, Arrival, has been hailed as a masterpiece across the Atlantic. But is it worthy of such a strong adjective?
From the director of Prisoners and Sicario; Arrival is not only one of the best sci-fi films of the last year, it’s up there with the genre’s greatest assets. We’re talking a Close Encounters level of good.
Linguistics professor Louise Banks (Amy Adams) leads an elite team of investigators when humongous spaceships touch down in 12 locations around the world. As nations teeter on the verge of global war, Banks and her crew must race against time to find a way to communicate with the extra-terrestrial visitors. Hoping to unravel the mystery, she takes a chance that could threaten her life and quite possibly all of mankind.
Amy Adams leads a pleasing cast that includes commanding turns from Forest Whitaker and Jeremy Renner but it is in our female protagonist that we find the most joy. Adams is fast becoming one of Hollywood’s best actresses and her complex character is superbly written and incredibly well acted.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is truly exceptional with the alien craft taking a backseat to sweeping landscapes from across the world. The focal point of the film, a lush and open Montana valley is filmed to a breath-taking standard especially during Arrival’s opening sequences.
When it comes to special effects, director Denis Villeneuve doesn’t bombard the audience with constant CGI, instead opting for a laidback approach. Even the aliens themselves are understated in their appearance. It’s also fair to say that the film is a slow-burner with very little in the way of action – though it manages to stay well-clear of becoming tedious.
In spite of all this though, Arrival’s greatest strength is its story. This is thinking person’s sci-fi that somehow manages to cement its themes with an emotional heft of gravitational proportions. Throughout the 114 minute running time, we’re constantly reminded of our characters and where it is they come from, something missing from the majority of mass-market blockbusters these days.
Overall, Arrival is more than worthy of an adjective like masterpiece. From it’s incredible story and beautiful cinematography to what is Amy Adams’ best performance to date, it’s a new classic for the sci-fi genre and well worth a watch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/11/11/thrilling-from-start-to-finish-arrival-review/
Ross (3284 KP) rated Reign of Madness in Books
Nov 30, 2018 (Updated Nov 30, 2018)
Good but needlessly long and slow
Following on from Free the Darkness, which ended somewhat abruptly ("we're going on an adventure, the end"), Reign of Madness sees Rezkin "Marty Stu" travelling to the King's Tournament with a group of fellow travellers. As before, his motives are somewhat hidden or confused but largely he is looking for answers to what his purpose was and why he had to kill all of his boyhood mentors.
In almost every chapter, something happens that makes it abundantly clear that Rezkin is of royal descent, and yet nobody picks up on the massive clanging hints that abound. Even right to the last page, his companions remain so stupid as to miss the obvious that it gets annoying. This might be Kade suggesting something of human nature / not wanting to accept the facts, but it comes across more that he hasn't hidden the clues as well as he thinks he has and only plain exposition could possibly lay them bare.
Part of this I think stems from the omniscient narrator again, the reader gets far too much information on everyone's thoughts and events so it is hard to put yourself in one character's position and their behaviours just seem so much more flawed than they would if we had only single person snapshot PoVs.
And Rezkin's character seems to be inconsistent - one minute he is meant to be a master of disguise and can insert himself into any situation, the next he doesn't understand any emotions; one chapter he nearly attacks a woman for approaching him quickly, the next he allows a grown man to hit him in anger as they grieve their recent bereavement.
As with book 1, the story is good, the action sequences well written and the underlying long-term plot is strong. However, some of the writing of it is clumsy (chapters of nothing but expository dialogue), the characters one-dimensional (especially the female characters) and a lot of the world (especially the magic such as it is) seems to be made up on the spot. And the whole thing just takes so long to get through. I think if you are dedicated and determined to plough through 20% plus a day this will be fine, if you pick it up now and then and get through less than 10% you will find yourself grinding to a halt through the first half of this book, where nothing happens except a donkey being healed and A LOT of dialogue about not a lot (which essentially just replaces things that should really have been explained in book 1).
I will carry on with the series but these long rambling tomes are stretching my tolerance (and the value for money from my Kindle Unlimited trial!).
In almost every chapter, something happens that makes it abundantly clear that Rezkin is of royal descent, and yet nobody picks up on the massive clanging hints that abound. Even right to the last page, his companions remain so stupid as to miss the obvious that it gets annoying. This might be Kade suggesting something of human nature / not wanting to accept the facts, but it comes across more that he hasn't hidden the clues as well as he thinks he has and only plain exposition could possibly lay them bare.
Part of this I think stems from the omniscient narrator again, the reader gets far too much information on everyone's thoughts and events so it is hard to put yourself in one character's position and their behaviours just seem so much more flawed than they would if we had only single person snapshot PoVs.
And Rezkin's character seems to be inconsistent - one minute he is meant to be a master of disguise and can insert himself into any situation, the next he doesn't understand any emotions; one chapter he nearly attacks a woman for approaching him quickly, the next he allows a grown man to hit him in anger as they grieve their recent bereavement.
As with book 1, the story is good, the action sequences well written and the underlying long-term plot is strong. However, some of the writing of it is clumsy (chapters of nothing but expository dialogue), the characters one-dimensional (especially the female characters) and a lot of the world (especially the magic such as it is) seems to be made up on the spot. And the whole thing just takes so long to get through. I think if you are dedicated and determined to plough through 20% plus a day this will be fine, if you pick it up now and then and get through less than 10% you will find yourself grinding to a halt through the first half of this book, where nothing happens except a donkey being healed and A LOT of dialogue about not a lot (which essentially just replaces things that should really have been explained in book 1).
I will carry on with the series but these long rambling tomes are stretching my tolerance (and the value for money from my Kindle Unlimited trial!).
Erika (17788 KP) rated Loki - Season 1 in TV
Jul 16, 2021 (Updated Jul 16, 2021)
I’ll stick with Loki’s original story-arc.
Contains spoilers, click to show
Loki, featuring the return of Tom Hiddleston to the MCU, has escaped with the tesseract, and is subsequently caught by the TVA. He agrees to help Owen Wilson’s Mobius track down a variant that is conveniently a version of himself. What ensues is a painful setup for Ironman with Magic… oh, sorry, Dr. Strange and the Multiverse of Madness.
On one hand, my ma always told me, if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all, but on the other hand, I haven’t been this pissed off at a major franchise since Star Wars: The Last Jedi. My visceral, negative reaction was caused by many things.
First, this series did not need to be made. Loki had a perfect ending to his overall arc, and it really didn’t need to be messed with. I am a huge Tom Hiddleston fan, I went to NYC to see him in a play, waited outside freezing my butt off to meet him, all of that. I was so glad when Loki was killed off, so he’d be free to do other things, and not just be known for Loki. Alas, that did not happen.
This series was made for two subsets of fans: the fans that can’t accept the death of their favorite character, and the fans that are absolutely, irrationally obsessed with having their favorite character paired up romantically. I fall into neither of these categories. ‘More Stories to Tell’ was the tagline… it should have been ‘More Money to be Made’.
After watching the same movie in a different flavor for over ten years, I realized that maybe the MCU wasn’t for me anymore. But, when Loki was announced, I was promised something new and weird! I thought, maybe this will be the show to get me back into the MCU. That was not the case. I cannot believe the rave reviews about this series; did we all watch the same thing?
The first warning sign for me was when it was announced that Michael Waldron, who was a writer for Rick & Morty was going to be helming this series. Rick & Morty is funny… if you’re a dude-bro, drunk, or high. When I read a few of his interviews prior to the release of Loki, another warning sign, this guy kind of sounded like a huge douchebag. I was then calmed and reassured that maybe it wouldn’t be a train-wreck because Hiddleston was heavily involved in the series.
As I’ve mentioned before, we were promised something new, different, and weird. Don’t make promises you can’t keep, creative team behind Loki.
Episode 1 was cheap; did I need to see clips from previous movies used in a very uncreative way? No, I did not. There was also something just off about the casting of Wilson. Now, this may be on me because my teen-years were spent quoting Owen Wilson films. There were a few things I liked about Episode 1, like the Blade Runner robot reference. There was a red flag in this episode though. Pro-tip: never, EVER have a character verbalize/confirm that they’re smart. Because it’s probably not the case.
Episode 2 was the bright spot, it was my favorite, by far. It was fast-paced, amusing, and the most interesting episode out of the whole series. The Mt Vesuvius/unleashing of the goats thing was the sort of thing I was looking for in this series. I actually chuckled a little, which rarely happens. It moved the story along, and we get the big reveal of the Loki variant that’s causing all the havoc.
Episode 3 was, for lack of a better word, boring. The pace slowed, and it was the infamous Disney+ show filler episode. We’re introduced to Mary Sue, sorry, I mean Lady Loki, but not really, Sylvie, the Enchantress, right? No, wait, she’s a completely different, new character. Probably shouldn’t have opted for the name Sylvie in that case. She’s a brand new, *strong* female, that shows her strength by punching people and has no personality (see: Carol Danvers - Captain Marvel, Hope van Dyne - Ant-Man). Y’all, you told me you were going to give me something different, new, weird. A Mary Sue isn’t new, different, or weird. This episode was a get-to-know-each-other, and build a pseudo-sibling relationship, right? Because anything else would be weird in a bad way, not an interesting way. There was a considerable shift in our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki character evolution, he opened-up, announced that he was a member of the LGBTQQIAAP nation, progress! First bi-sexual character in the MCU, way to go Disney, getting with the times! It was still a filler episode though, and while the stakes seemed high, you knew that there were three more episodes to go, of course they would live.
Again, I was reassured after this lackluster episode by Hiddleston, that 4 and 5 were his favorite. That fact is now disturbing.
Episode 4 was the death knell. I think the response from the creative team afterwards was also incredibly tone-deaf, and, quite frankly, insulting. The 4th episode was so bad, I legitimately had to go cleanse my eyes and brain with a GBBO marathon. The fact that the creative team had no idea that the insta-love (see: Jane and Thor - Thor) between two characters that had seemingly formed a pseudo-sibling relationship wouldn’t come off a little incest-y is really strange to me. If a pseudo-sibling relationship was not the intention, then it was poor writing, directing and acting by all parties involved. Sometimes, when a Mary Sue punches our main character, he falls in love with her (see: Hope and Scott - Ant-Man). The whole narcissism thing was hilarious, I’m glad our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki was cured of that by Sylvie and another *strong* personality-lacking woman (see: Sif -Thor/Thor: the Dark World) kicking him between the legs was what he’d needed all along. If a small portion of this episode was actually utilizing the myth of Narcissus, then I’m glad they followed it through to the dying part. This is when everything clicked for me. Our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki’s character evolution made him a big ol’ bowl of mushy, overcooked oatmeal. HOW and WHY would you take one of the best anti-heroes in the MCU, or any superhero franchise, and make him so mushy? More importantly, I didn’t care about what happened to any of the characters, except B-15. Normally, that’s my cue to stop watching a show, but I wanted to see if they tried to convince audiences that this Oatmeal Loki was actually smart and logical.
Episode 5 was when things slightly improved. Again, I couldn’t forgive the events of Episode 4, and I totally fast-forwarded during whatever talk Loki and Mary Sue, sorry, Sylvie, had with a blankie around their shoulders. All of the other Lokis were better in their tiny amount of screen time than Oatmeal Loki and Mary Sue Loki. Alligator Loki had more personality than Sylvie. Richard Grant is the superior Loki in my opinion. This episode also reintroduced hand holding with CGI colors swirling around characters (see: Guardians of the Galaxy).
Episode 6 was our finale. Thank God. We’re introduced to the real head of the TVA, which was who everyone was expecting. This episode was a little slow-paced, with a lot of interesting chit-chat. Oatmeal Loki actually seemed like he had a brain cell or two for a few brief, fleeting moments. He even showed off some of his powers, which, by the way, we were told we’d see more of… but didn’t. Then, our Oatmeal Loki was distracted by his Mary Sue, went for a kiss, and plopped right on his ass, looking like a fool. I almost snorted my coffee as I watched. Then, they confirmed a Season 2.
Honestly, I was hoping Oatmeal Loki and Mary Sue Loki would get killed off. Sadly, it didn’t happen, and they’re getting another series, and an appearance in Ironman with Magic. I’m so glad this series was something new, different, and weird, not just the bog-standard, MCU drivel we normally get. Oh, wait… I probably don’t even need to state that this wasn’t my cup of tea, and, again, solidified the fact that I’m over the MCU. I also know that I should avoid anything Michael Waldron and Kate Herron touch. Eventually, I’ll stop feeling betrayed by Hiddleston, but it may take a while. Is that ridiculous? Probably.
On one hand, my ma always told me, if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all, but on the other hand, I haven’t been this pissed off at a major franchise since Star Wars: The Last Jedi. My visceral, negative reaction was caused by many things.
First, this series did not need to be made. Loki had a perfect ending to his overall arc, and it really didn’t need to be messed with. I am a huge Tom Hiddleston fan, I went to NYC to see him in a play, waited outside freezing my butt off to meet him, all of that. I was so glad when Loki was killed off, so he’d be free to do other things, and not just be known for Loki. Alas, that did not happen.
This series was made for two subsets of fans: the fans that can’t accept the death of their favorite character, and the fans that are absolutely, irrationally obsessed with having their favorite character paired up romantically. I fall into neither of these categories. ‘More Stories to Tell’ was the tagline… it should have been ‘More Money to be Made’.
After watching the same movie in a different flavor for over ten years, I realized that maybe the MCU wasn’t for me anymore. But, when Loki was announced, I was promised something new and weird! I thought, maybe this will be the show to get me back into the MCU. That was not the case. I cannot believe the rave reviews about this series; did we all watch the same thing?
The first warning sign for me was when it was announced that Michael Waldron, who was a writer for Rick & Morty was going to be helming this series. Rick & Morty is funny… if you’re a dude-bro, drunk, or high. When I read a few of his interviews prior to the release of Loki, another warning sign, this guy kind of sounded like a huge douchebag. I was then calmed and reassured that maybe it wouldn’t be a train-wreck because Hiddleston was heavily involved in the series.
As I’ve mentioned before, we were promised something new, different, and weird. Don’t make promises you can’t keep, creative team behind Loki.
Episode 1 was cheap; did I need to see clips from previous movies used in a very uncreative way? No, I did not. There was also something just off about the casting of Wilson. Now, this may be on me because my teen-years were spent quoting Owen Wilson films. There were a few things I liked about Episode 1, like the Blade Runner robot reference. There was a red flag in this episode though. Pro-tip: never, EVER have a character verbalize/confirm that they’re smart. Because it’s probably not the case.
Episode 2 was the bright spot, it was my favorite, by far. It was fast-paced, amusing, and the most interesting episode out of the whole series. The Mt Vesuvius/unleashing of the goats thing was the sort of thing I was looking for in this series. I actually chuckled a little, which rarely happens. It moved the story along, and we get the big reveal of the Loki variant that’s causing all the havoc.
Episode 3 was, for lack of a better word, boring. The pace slowed, and it was the infamous Disney+ show filler episode. We’re introduced to Mary Sue, sorry, I mean Lady Loki, but not really, Sylvie, the Enchantress, right? No, wait, she’s a completely different, new character. Probably shouldn’t have opted for the name Sylvie in that case. She’s a brand new, *strong* female, that shows her strength by punching people and has no personality (see: Carol Danvers - Captain Marvel, Hope van Dyne - Ant-Man). Y’all, you told me you were going to give me something different, new, weird. A Mary Sue isn’t new, different, or weird. This episode was a get-to-know-each-other, and build a pseudo-sibling relationship, right? Because anything else would be weird in a bad way, not an interesting way. There was a considerable shift in our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki character evolution, he opened-up, announced that he was a member of the LGBTQQIAAP nation, progress! First bi-sexual character in the MCU, way to go Disney, getting with the times! It was still a filler episode though, and while the stakes seemed high, you knew that there were three more episodes to go, of course they would live.
Again, I was reassured after this lackluster episode by Hiddleston, that 4 and 5 were his favorite. That fact is now disturbing.
Episode 4 was the death knell. I think the response from the creative team afterwards was also incredibly tone-deaf, and, quite frankly, insulting. The 4th episode was so bad, I legitimately had to go cleanse my eyes and brain with a GBBO marathon. The fact that the creative team had no idea that the insta-love (see: Jane and Thor - Thor) between two characters that had seemingly formed a pseudo-sibling relationship wouldn’t come off a little incest-y is really strange to me. If a pseudo-sibling relationship was not the intention, then it was poor writing, directing and acting by all parties involved. Sometimes, when a Mary Sue punches our main character, he falls in love with her (see: Hope and Scott - Ant-Man). The whole narcissism thing was hilarious, I’m glad our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki was cured of that by Sylvie and another *strong* personality-lacking woman (see: Sif -Thor/Thor: the Dark World) kicking him between the legs was what he’d needed all along. If a small portion of this episode was actually utilizing the myth of Narcissus, then I’m glad they followed it through to the dying part. This is when everything clicked for me. Our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki’s character evolution made him a big ol’ bowl of mushy, overcooked oatmeal. HOW and WHY would you take one of the best anti-heroes in the MCU, or any superhero franchise, and make him so mushy? More importantly, I didn’t care about what happened to any of the characters, except B-15. Normally, that’s my cue to stop watching a show, but I wanted to see if they tried to convince audiences that this Oatmeal Loki was actually smart and logical.
Episode 5 was when things slightly improved. Again, I couldn’t forgive the events of Episode 4, and I totally fast-forwarded during whatever talk Loki and Mary Sue, sorry, Sylvie, had with a blankie around their shoulders. All of the other Lokis were better in their tiny amount of screen time than Oatmeal Loki and Mary Sue Loki. Alligator Loki had more personality than Sylvie. Richard Grant is the superior Loki in my opinion. This episode also reintroduced hand holding with CGI colors swirling around characters (see: Guardians of the Galaxy).
Episode 6 was our finale. Thank God. We’re introduced to the real head of the TVA, which was who everyone was expecting. This episode was a little slow-paced, with a lot of interesting chit-chat. Oatmeal Loki actually seemed like he had a brain cell or two for a few brief, fleeting moments. He even showed off some of his powers, which, by the way, we were told we’d see more of… but didn’t. Then, our Oatmeal Loki was distracted by his Mary Sue, went for a kiss, and plopped right on his ass, looking like a fool. I almost snorted my coffee as I watched. Then, they confirmed a Season 2.
Honestly, I was hoping Oatmeal Loki and Mary Sue Loki would get killed off. Sadly, it didn’t happen, and they’re getting another series, and an appearance in Ironman with Magic. I’m so glad this series was something new, different, and weird, not just the bog-standard, MCU drivel we normally get. Oh, wait… I probably don’t even need to state that this wasn’t my cup of tea, and, again, solidified the fact that I’m over the MCU. I also know that I should avoid anything Michael Waldron and Kate Herron touch. Eventually, I’ll stop feeling betrayed by Hiddleston, but it may take a while. Is that ridiculous? Probably.
Dana (24 KP) rated The Crown's Game (The Crown's Game, #1) in Books
Mar 23, 2018
This review, like all others before it, will have spoilers in it. Read at your own risk.
This book was pretty cool! It is not like a lot of the other fantasy novels I read because it is set in Russia in 1825 and has some actual historical people and ideas in it. By the way, that is one of my favorite parts of this book. The fact that it is able to mix fact and fiction together so well is a feat not many can do, so I applaud Ms. Skye for doing just that.
The world felt so real and very well developed. I got the feeling that a lot of research went into creating this book and I am glad she did because it feels authentic and inhabited which is often a problem in fantasy novels such as this. Though she draws on history and fact, she understands she is able to pull in here own creative licenses because she has to make a world that will fit her story. I enjoyed those facts a lot and I am excited to see what else we will get to see in the next book (which I still need to buy).
Now onto characters, then plot.
The main character Vika is a very strong female lead, which I love in any story, not just in fantasy. She is powerful and she knows it. While this can lead to arrogance and a little too much self-esteem, but she is brought to be humbled quite a bit throughout the book, which is actually nice. It grounds her. While she is a strong character, this fact gets her into trouble sometimes because she thinks too much of herself. This arrogance is inevitably what kills her father. She is blinded by the strength she now has and, instead of questioning why she all of the sudden got so much stronger, she just rolls on without a care in the world.
I love Nikolai. In my humble opinion, he is so much better than Pasha because he opens himself up to being hurt but doesn't get angry or act like a spoiled brat when people do something wrong. Nikolai is a dreamer, something I appreciate a lot. He has his heads in the clouds sometimes and needs someone to bring him back down. While he is competitive, just like Vika, he is also very thoughtful. He could have done many things with his magic, but each time, he did something for the people, whether to bring them joy or to restore the magic of what they once knew, he does it for people other than himself. MAJOR SPOILER IS COMING UP NEXT: In his final act of the book, he gives his life to save Vika and if that isn't selfless, I don't know what is. He is caring and kind and I just wished he could have been completely happy. He loved Vika and he deserved so much more than he got. Also, that plot twist that he is the tsar's son, holy crap, I did not see that coming at all.
Now onto Pasha. I am not really a fan of Pasha, to be completely honest. He thinks he is so worthless in comparison to Nikolai even though he is going to be the tsar of Russia. Why is he making everything into a pissing match with his best friend after he finds out Nikolai also loves Vika? Seriously, he could have anyone he wanted, but no. He just has to have an enchantress. He is very selfish and does not think about how his actions will always have consequences and that is a little too reckless for me. Even though he knows he is going to become the tsar, he doesn't take his responsibility seriously at all. I am just not a fan of him. I hope he does not end up with Vika because she deserves so much more than him.
What I love most about these characters is that they have faults and issues that they have to overcome and deal with before they can move on to the next stages of their lives (well, some of them at least).
Onto the plot!
I thought this story was very well structured. I enjoyed the pacing and the flow of everything as well. It felt like it was an actual competition to see who could get my attention the most. (It was Vika and Nikolai as my top two, the others were kinda annoying at times).
Overall, I really enjoyed this book and I am excited to pick up the next one! If you have not already, give this book a read and tell me what you think!
This book was pretty cool! It is not like a lot of the other fantasy novels I read because it is set in Russia in 1825 and has some actual historical people and ideas in it. By the way, that is one of my favorite parts of this book. The fact that it is able to mix fact and fiction together so well is a feat not many can do, so I applaud Ms. Skye for doing just that.
The world felt so real and very well developed. I got the feeling that a lot of research went into creating this book and I am glad she did because it feels authentic and inhabited which is often a problem in fantasy novels such as this. Though she draws on history and fact, she understands she is able to pull in here own creative licenses because she has to make a world that will fit her story. I enjoyed those facts a lot and I am excited to see what else we will get to see in the next book (which I still need to buy).
Now onto characters, then plot.
The main character Vika is a very strong female lead, which I love in any story, not just in fantasy. She is powerful and she knows it. While this can lead to arrogance and a little too much self-esteem, but she is brought to be humbled quite a bit throughout the book, which is actually nice. It grounds her. While she is a strong character, this fact gets her into trouble sometimes because she thinks too much of herself. This arrogance is inevitably what kills her father. She is blinded by the strength she now has and, instead of questioning why she all of the sudden got so much stronger, she just rolls on without a care in the world.
I love Nikolai. In my humble opinion, he is so much better than Pasha because he opens himself up to being hurt but doesn't get angry or act like a spoiled brat when people do something wrong. Nikolai is a dreamer, something I appreciate a lot. He has his heads in the clouds sometimes and needs someone to bring him back down. While he is competitive, just like Vika, he is also very thoughtful. He could have done many things with his magic, but each time, he did something for the people, whether to bring them joy or to restore the magic of what they once knew, he does it for people other than himself. MAJOR SPOILER IS COMING UP NEXT: In his final act of the book, he gives his life to save Vika and if that isn't selfless, I don't know what is. He is caring and kind and I just wished he could have been completely happy. He loved Vika and he deserved so much more than he got. Also, that plot twist that he is the tsar's son, holy crap, I did not see that coming at all.
Now onto Pasha. I am not really a fan of Pasha, to be completely honest. He thinks he is so worthless in comparison to Nikolai even though he is going to be the tsar of Russia. Why is he making everything into a pissing match with his best friend after he finds out Nikolai also loves Vika? Seriously, he could have anyone he wanted, but no. He just has to have an enchantress. He is very selfish and does not think about how his actions will always have consequences and that is a little too reckless for me. Even though he knows he is going to become the tsar, he doesn't take his responsibility seriously at all. I am just not a fan of him. I hope he does not end up with Vika because she deserves so much more than him.
What I love most about these characters is that they have faults and issues that they have to overcome and deal with before they can move on to the next stages of their lives (well, some of them at least).
Onto the plot!
I thought this story was very well structured. I enjoyed the pacing and the flow of everything as well. It felt like it was an actual competition to see who could get my attention the most. (It was Vika and Nikolai as my top two, the others were kinda annoying at times).
Overall, I really enjoyed this book and I am excited to pick up the next one! If you have not already, give this book a read and tell me what you think!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Terminator: Dark Fate (2019) in Movies
Nov 10, 2019
Natalie Reyes - a kick-ass non-white female hero (1 more)
Arnie's drapes
Linda Hamilton - acting didn't work for me (1 more)
Confusing storyline (as a continuation of T2)
Enjoyable Hokum
Natalia Reyes plays young Mexican Dani Ramos. Out of the blue she faces danger and tragedy when a ‘Rev 9’ Terminator (Gabriel Luna) zaps itself back in time to Mexico City to dispose of her. But, as in “Terminator 2: Judgement Day”, a protector is on hand. This time it’s in the ripped form of ‘enhanced’ human Grace (Mackenzie Davis). She’s there to protect Dani and maintain whatever key to the future that she holds.
Dani is assisted by Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton), a vigilante Terminator-fighter wanted in all 50 US States for wanton destruction of property. But even this dynamic duo are no match for the unstoppable force of the Rev 9. So they must turn to an old nemesis from Sarah’s past for assistance.
James Cameron is heavily involved with this one. The decision was made to ‘reboot’ the series as if all the dodgy Terminator movies of the intervening years (after #2) had never happened. (That’s not to say that *I* necessarily found them all dodgy. I quite liked “Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines” for example, with it’s grim and downbeat ending).
Now I went into this flick understanding that premise. So a flashback scene in the first few minutes of the film left me mightily confused. How on earth did this link to the ‘thumbs up’ scene at the end of “Terminator 2”? #baffled.
But if you ignore this issue, the film settles into what I thought was a nice “Logan“-style modus operandi. There’s an exciting chase sequence along a Mexican highway, but it never overwhelmed the ongoing development of character and motive.
Unfortunately, this didn’t last. Overall, the script lacked momentum, showing a general lack of narrative drive. This is the result, I suspect, of the familiar malaise of ‘team-input’. There are a total of SIX writers contributing to the story and/or screenplay. For example, an opportunity to take a poke at Trump’s Mexican wall isn’t taken; neither are scenes in the topically newsworthy detention centre. It’s as if the “better not: we’ll upset people” button was pressed in either the writing room or by the studio.
Trying to make up for this wallowing second reel, the movie – on boarding a military transport plane – goes to extremes of unbelievable action, both in the sky and below the water. That “Logan-esque” start seems a long way away now.
There’s another element of the movie that confused the hell out of me. The ‘Rev 9’ is able to jump out of it’s “skeleton” which could then pursue actions on its own. Given the Terminator gets FLATTENED – skeleton and all – during certain scenes of the film, this makes little sense unless the skeleton is made of the same ‘liquid metal’ as the body. In which case, why not just have liquid metal that can assume multiple different forms and attack the target from all sides? Perhaps that came in with the “Rev 10”!
But it’s not as bad as I’ve made it sound. This is in no way a terrible movie. As a ‘brain at the door’ piece of sci-fi hocum I really quite enjoyed it. The cast in particular is nicely of our time. There’s a Colombian (not Mexican), feisty and successful female lead in the form of the relatively unknown Reyes. And she has two strong female characters in support. Arnie Schwarzenegger has top billing, but his is really a supporting role.
Natalia Reyes I thought was particularly impressive. The girl has real screen presence, and I look forward to seeing what she does next.
Mackenzie Davis is also terrific as the kick-ass cyborg. I particularly liked the way she executed a neat plot device. Grace has a ‘war-machine’ design… she’s designed for incredible bursts of activity over short periods, but then becomes next to useless as her body crashes and needs ‘rebooting’.
I don’t want to be mean, but there’s probably a reason Linda Hamilton hasn’t been in more mainstream movies since T2. Her acting here is adequate at best and didn’t really cut it for me. The script has delivered her a number of humorous lines – including the iconic “I’ll be back’ – but none of them really land in the delivery.
Instead , it’s Arnie who has the best lines in the movie, delivered with dead-pan wit. His “cover” identity – and particularly his chosen profession – deliver some laugh out loud dialogue.
All in all, I found this a big step up on other Terminator films in the series. The director is Tim Miller, he of “Deadpool“. It’s not bloody Shakespeare, but I found it – warts and all – an enjoyable night out at the movies.
For the full graphical review, check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/10/one-manns-movies-film-review-terminator-dark-fate-2019/
Dani is assisted by Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton), a vigilante Terminator-fighter wanted in all 50 US States for wanton destruction of property. But even this dynamic duo are no match for the unstoppable force of the Rev 9. So they must turn to an old nemesis from Sarah’s past for assistance.
James Cameron is heavily involved with this one. The decision was made to ‘reboot’ the series as if all the dodgy Terminator movies of the intervening years (after #2) had never happened. (That’s not to say that *I* necessarily found them all dodgy. I quite liked “Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines” for example, with it’s grim and downbeat ending).
Now I went into this flick understanding that premise. So a flashback scene in the first few minutes of the film left me mightily confused. How on earth did this link to the ‘thumbs up’ scene at the end of “Terminator 2”? #baffled.
But if you ignore this issue, the film settles into what I thought was a nice “Logan“-style modus operandi. There’s an exciting chase sequence along a Mexican highway, but it never overwhelmed the ongoing development of character and motive.
Unfortunately, this didn’t last. Overall, the script lacked momentum, showing a general lack of narrative drive. This is the result, I suspect, of the familiar malaise of ‘team-input’. There are a total of SIX writers contributing to the story and/or screenplay. For example, an opportunity to take a poke at Trump’s Mexican wall isn’t taken; neither are scenes in the topically newsworthy detention centre. It’s as if the “better not: we’ll upset people” button was pressed in either the writing room or by the studio.
Trying to make up for this wallowing second reel, the movie – on boarding a military transport plane – goes to extremes of unbelievable action, both in the sky and below the water. That “Logan-esque” start seems a long way away now.
There’s another element of the movie that confused the hell out of me. The ‘Rev 9’ is able to jump out of it’s “skeleton” which could then pursue actions on its own. Given the Terminator gets FLATTENED – skeleton and all – during certain scenes of the film, this makes little sense unless the skeleton is made of the same ‘liquid metal’ as the body. In which case, why not just have liquid metal that can assume multiple different forms and attack the target from all sides? Perhaps that came in with the “Rev 10”!
But it’s not as bad as I’ve made it sound. This is in no way a terrible movie. As a ‘brain at the door’ piece of sci-fi hocum I really quite enjoyed it. The cast in particular is nicely of our time. There’s a Colombian (not Mexican), feisty and successful female lead in the form of the relatively unknown Reyes. And she has two strong female characters in support. Arnie Schwarzenegger has top billing, but his is really a supporting role.
Natalia Reyes I thought was particularly impressive. The girl has real screen presence, and I look forward to seeing what she does next.
Mackenzie Davis is also terrific as the kick-ass cyborg. I particularly liked the way she executed a neat plot device. Grace has a ‘war-machine’ design… she’s designed for incredible bursts of activity over short periods, but then becomes next to useless as her body crashes and needs ‘rebooting’.
I don’t want to be mean, but there’s probably a reason Linda Hamilton hasn’t been in more mainstream movies since T2. Her acting here is adequate at best and didn’t really cut it for me. The script has delivered her a number of humorous lines – including the iconic “I’ll be back’ – but none of them really land in the delivery.
Instead , it’s Arnie who has the best lines in the movie, delivered with dead-pan wit. His “cover” identity – and particularly his chosen profession – deliver some laugh out loud dialogue.
All in all, I found this a big step up on other Terminator films in the series. The director is Tim Miller, he of “Deadpool“. It’s not bloody Shakespeare, but I found it – warts and all – an enjoyable night out at the movies.
For the full graphical review, check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/10/one-manns-movies-film-review-terminator-dark-fate-2019/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Let Him Go (2020) in Movies
Dec 23, 2020
Feud for Thought
After a family tragedy for the Blackledge family, grandparents George (Kevin Costner) and Margaret (Diane Lane) are left to bring up baby Jimmy (Bram and Otto Hornung) with mother/daughter-in-law Lorna (Kayli Carter). But a few years later, Lorna marries bad-un Donnie Weboy (Will Brittain) and disappears back to Donnie's hillbilly extended family in the wilds of North Dakota, led by the fearsome Blanche Weboy (Lesley Manville). Fearing for the child's wellbeing, Margaret drags retired Sheriff George on a dangerous journey to rescue the child.
There are strong similarities in this story with a sub-plot of the excellent "Ozark", where the psychopathic Darlene Snell (Lisa Emery) is intent on having a child to grow up with on her remote ranch. The sense of tension there is recreated here, exacerbated by the movie's extremely slow (read "glacial") pace in its early stages. It's the same sort of rising dread that I felt with "Nocturnal Animals". This reaches its peak at a tense standoff over lamb chops at the Weboy ranch, but we are probably half-way into the film by then.
The slow pace however is broken by a couple of extremely violent scenes that earn the movie its UK-15 certificate. One (no spoilers here!) harks back to another Kevin Costner blockbuster where he was a bit luckier! And the finale turns a slightly sleepy tale of "two old folks" into an 'all guns blazing' action western that's highly unexpected. Although you could argue that this is tonally extremely uneven, it works and makes the movie a lot more memorable than it otherwise would be.
The standout leading performance here is the one from Diane Lane as the mentally tortured Granny pursuing her convictions across the country. Here writer/director Thomas Bezucha gives the character full rein. It's a memorable 'strong female' part, that would have been dominated by the male lead in the writing of films a few years back. Lane delivers a dramatic and rock-solid performance that has Oscar nomination written all over it.
I'm also a big fan of Kevin Costner, not just because he's a solid and reliable actor over many years. I always remember him gamely appearing as "The Postman"/'propeller-guy' in Billy Crystal's hilarious montage opening for the 70th Academy Awards. Anyhow, here he has his meatiest dramatic role in many years, and delivers fully on it. Top job, although I suspect this may not be his year for his elusive Best Actor award.
Finally, rounding out the Oscar hopefuls is the brilliant Lesley Manville as Blanche Weboy. It's a dream of a role for the Brighton-born star, nominated of course for the Best Supporting Actress two years ago for "Phantom Thread". And she is genuinely chilling here, firing on all cylinders like some sort of deranged Bette Davis on speed. She's used sparingly in the movie, but that makes her scenes all the more memorable. Another nomination perhaps? I'd predict so, yes.
I found this to be an uncomfortable watch, since I found myself in a moral quandary with the storyline. It's clear that Margaret is genuinely concerned for the safety of Jimmy (and less so, Lorna). Yet, what she is ultimately prepared to do is consider child abduction, when the law if probably on the side of the other party. Sure, the lifestyle and attitudes of the Weboys are alien to this more traditional "Granny". But although Blanche rules with a Victorian-level of grit, isn't she - at least before any of her more vicious tendencies emerge - entitled to do that? The film firmly roots itself behind the Blackledge's as "the good guys", but the script cleverly has you questioning that at various points,
Two technical categories in "Let Him Go" are also worthy of note. The cinematography is by Guy Godfree, and the sweeping vistas of Montana and North Dakota (actually Alberta in Canada!) are gloriously delivered. And the music by Michael Giacchino - one of my favourite composers - is cello-heavy and fitting for the sombre storyline. I always assess the quality of a score by whether I annoy the cinema cleaners by sitting until the last of the end credits have rolled, and this is one I did that to.
As the last movie I see before Christmas, "Let Him Go" is not exactly a feelgood festive offering. It's a well-crafted and thoughtful story, but not one to make you feel good inside, for the reasons outlined above. If you are a movie-lover though, then it's an interesting watch, if only for the fine acting performances on offer.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the "Bob the Movie Man" review on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/23/let-him-go-is-not-a-joyous-affair-but-delivers-oscar-worthy-performances/. Thanks.)
There are strong similarities in this story with a sub-plot of the excellent "Ozark", where the psychopathic Darlene Snell (Lisa Emery) is intent on having a child to grow up with on her remote ranch. The sense of tension there is recreated here, exacerbated by the movie's extremely slow (read "glacial") pace in its early stages. It's the same sort of rising dread that I felt with "Nocturnal Animals". This reaches its peak at a tense standoff over lamb chops at the Weboy ranch, but we are probably half-way into the film by then.
The slow pace however is broken by a couple of extremely violent scenes that earn the movie its UK-15 certificate. One (no spoilers here!) harks back to another Kevin Costner blockbuster where he was a bit luckier! And the finale turns a slightly sleepy tale of "two old folks" into an 'all guns blazing' action western that's highly unexpected. Although you could argue that this is tonally extremely uneven, it works and makes the movie a lot more memorable than it otherwise would be.
The standout leading performance here is the one from Diane Lane as the mentally tortured Granny pursuing her convictions across the country. Here writer/director Thomas Bezucha gives the character full rein. It's a memorable 'strong female' part, that would have been dominated by the male lead in the writing of films a few years back. Lane delivers a dramatic and rock-solid performance that has Oscar nomination written all over it.
I'm also a big fan of Kevin Costner, not just because he's a solid and reliable actor over many years. I always remember him gamely appearing as "The Postman"/'propeller-guy' in Billy Crystal's hilarious montage opening for the 70th Academy Awards. Anyhow, here he has his meatiest dramatic role in many years, and delivers fully on it. Top job, although I suspect this may not be his year for his elusive Best Actor award.
Finally, rounding out the Oscar hopefuls is the brilliant Lesley Manville as Blanche Weboy. It's a dream of a role for the Brighton-born star, nominated of course for the Best Supporting Actress two years ago for "Phantom Thread". And she is genuinely chilling here, firing on all cylinders like some sort of deranged Bette Davis on speed. She's used sparingly in the movie, but that makes her scenes all the more memorable. Another nomination perhaps? I'd predict so, yes.
I found this to be an uncomfortable watch, since I found myself in a moral quandary with the storyline. It's clear that Margaret is genuinely concerned for the safety of Jimmy (and less so, Lorna). Yet, what she is ultimately prepared to do is consider child abduction, when the law if probably on the side of the other party. Sure, the lifestyle and attitudes of the Weboys are alien to this more traditional "Granny". But although Blanche rules with a Victorian-level of grit, isn't she - at least before any of her more vicious tendencies emerge - entitled to do that? The film firmly roots itself behind the Blackledge's as "the good guys", but the script cleverly has you questioning that at various points,
Two technical categories in "Let Him Go" are also worthy of note. The cinematography is by Guy Godfree, and the sweeping vistas of Montana and North Dakota (actually Alberta in Canada!) are gloriously delivered. And the music by Michael Giacchino - one of my favourite composers - is cello-heavy and fitting for the sombre storyline. I always assess the quality of a score by whether I annoy the cinema cleaners by sitting until the last of the end credits have rolled, and this is one I did that to.
As the last movie I see before Christmas, "Let Him Go" is not exactly a feelgood festive offering. It's a well-crafted and thoughtful story, but not one to make you feel good inside, for the reasons outlined above. If you are a movie-lover though, then it's an interesting watch, if only for the fine acting performances on offer.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the "Bob the Movie Man" review on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/23/let-him-go-is-not-a-joyous-affair-but-delivers-oscar-worthy-performances/. Thanks.)
A Tragedy of Errors: The Story of Grace Murray the Woman Whom John Wesley Loved and Lost
Book
The story of John Wesley's affair with Grace Murray and how Charles Wesley prevented their marriage...
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Alienated: Grounded At Groom Lake in Books
Aug 3, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Book-Review-Banner-31.png"/>;
Alienated: Grounded at Groom Lake by Jeff Norton was the perfect middle grade quarantine book I was waiting for! Also - during the quarantine, Jeff is reading a chapter a day on his YouTube Channel, so please do check it out. His reading is wonderful!
From the first moment I read the synopsis, I knew I was going to like this book.
Fourteen-year-old Sherman is used to moving schools. But he's never been to a school like Groom Lake High, the high school for aliens.
It's a very alien environment for him, and he has to fit in. He quickly makes friends with a gang of galactic misfits. When the school bully NED endangers planet Earth, Sherman and his friends have to do anything they can to stop him!
<b><i>My Thoughts:</i></b>
The thing I loved most about Alienated: Grounded at Groom Lake was the amazing word play and inside jokes. It is very well thought and written and I really enjoyed it! There were so many puns and witty jokes that a children might initially miss, but will definitely make an adult chuckle.
<b><i>"It suddenly struck me that Facebook might be one of the alien inventions we were all using. I had seen its inventor on TV once and he definitely looked more alien than human."</i></b>
We read the book from Sherman's point of view.
And through him, we find out everything. His thoughts, his choices, his fears and his dreams. Not only do we get to know him, but we also get to watch his character grow as we move throughout the book.
<b><i>"Sherman, when you get older, you'll come to appreciate that life is basically a series of disappointments."</i></b>
Even though alien, this high school puts Sherman through all the troubles a normal school does: making friends, being bullied and having a crush. But Sherman also gets to fly rockets and has a chance to save the world!
Sherman's sister and his group of friends are awesome! They are funny and smart. I loved Octo, especially for his bravery and selflessness. I also loved the fact that the female characters were presented as strong and powerful individuals. It was a tiny touch, but quite meaningful, and it shouldn't go unnoticed.
<b><i>"Now don't be fooled. Jess might look like a malnourished goth queen, but she punches like a heavyweight."</i></b>
I also liked NED as a character.
<b><i>"I'd call him a bully, but that's giving bullies a bad name."</i></b>
He was quite a big bully - that is true. However, being evil is the only think he learned from his parents while growing up. The lesson we can learn is that sometimes we do bad things because we don't know any different. But what we do once we are given a second chance is what really matters!
I absolutely loved this book and I recommend it not only to middle-graders, but to people of all ages. It's a gem and it deserves to be n every child's library.
I received a copy of this book through a giveaway on Toppsta. All opinions are my own and completely unbiased.
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Book-Review-Banner-31.png"/>;
Alienated: Grounded at Groom Lake by Jeff Norton was the perfect middle grade quarantine book I was waiting for! Also - during the quarantine, Jeff is reading a chapter a day on his YouTube Channel, so please do check it out. His reading is wonderful!
From the first moment I read the synopsis, I knew I was going to like this book.
Fourteen-year-old Sherman is used to moving schools. But he's never been to a school like Groom Lake High, the high school for aliens.
It's a very alien environment for him, and he has to fit in. He quickly makes friends with a gang of galactic misfits. When the school bully NED endangers planet Earth, Sherman and his friends have to do anything they can to stop him!
<b><i>My Thoughts:</i></b>
The thing I loved most about Alienated: Grounded at Groom Lake was the amazing word play and inside jokes. It is very well thought and written and I really enjoyed it! There were so many puns and witty jokes that a children might initially miss, but will definitely make an adult chuckle.
<b><i>"It suddenly struck me that Facebook might be one of the alien inventions we were all using. I had seen its inventor on TV once and he definitely looked more alien than human."</i></b>
We read the book from Sherman's point of view.
And through him, we find out everything. His thoughts, his choices, his fears and his dreams. Not only do we get to know him, but we also get to watch his character grow as we move throughout the book.
<b><i>"Sherman, when you get older, you'll come to appreciate that life is basically a series of disappointments."</i></b>
Even though alien, this high school puts Sherman through all the troubles a normal school does: making friends, being bullied and having a crush. But Sherman also gets to fly rockets and has a chance to save the world!
Sherman's sister and his group of friends are awesome! They are funny and smart. I loved Octo, especially for his bravery and selflessness. I also loved the fact that the female characters were presented as strong and powerful individuals. It was a tiny touch, but quite meaningful, and it shouldn't go unnoticed.
<b><i>"Now don't be fooled. Jess might look like a malnourished goth queen, but she punches like a heavyweight."</i></b>
I also liked NED as a character.
<b><i>"I'd call him a bully, but that's giving bullies a bad name."</i></b>
He was quite a big bully - that is true. However, being evil is the only think he learned from his parents while growing up. The lesson we can learn is that sometimes we do bad things because we don't know any different. But what we do once we are given a second chance is what really matters!
I absolutely loved this book and I recommend it not only to middle-graders, but to people of all ages. It's a gem and it deserves to be n every child's library.
I received a copy of this book through a giveaway on Toppsta. All opinions are my own and completely unbiased.
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;