Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Breakthrough (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
The fact that this film is based on a true story is incredible to think about. I haven't read the book that was written by the boy's mother or read about the actual incident and events online, I'm not sure I want to. I usually like finding out the differences to the actual stories but I wonder if in this instance it might make me change the way I feel about the film.
John is off with his friends having fun, and what's more fun than playing out on a frozen lake? By the time they hear the crack it's too late, the three boys go under. With the emergency services on their way it's a countdown to rescuing them. Two of them have their head above water, but John, knocked unconscious while trying to help his friend out of the water, is sinking. When water rescue appears it may already be too late. They take the search slowly, but John could be anywhere, it's almost certainly too late. Tommy is about to call an end to the search when he hears someone telling him to go back, and there he is.
Rushed to the hospital, the doctors and staff work on trying to bring him back, but as the time elapses there is nothing to do but continue until his family arrive. Joyce, his mother, is devastated and not willing to accept that it's the end... and she prays, asking god to save her son... the monitor beeps to life.
Everywhere I see descriptions of this it says "christian drama". I honestly don't see that the word "christian" needs to be in there. Sure, Joyce prays a fair bit, and their pastor is in it a lot too, but it's still just a drama about something miraculous happening.
By far the best performance for me was Chrissy Metz. Joyce comes across as a very determined woman in everything that she does, and Metz really makes that stand out. From the happiness to the heartbreak, it's all believeable, which sometimes doesn't happen with films that are based on true stories.
I enjoyed Mike Colter as Tommy too. As a non-religious man trying to deal with what happened to him, and what he sees happening to John, the thought process was clear on his face and I liked how he visually interacted with those around him in those moments.
By far the strongest scene for me was the one I mentioned above in the hospital. I think it's always quite challenging to create something that has an impact on the viewer when they already know what the outcome is going to be. In this instance we already know that John doesn't die, we just don't know how the situation is remedied. The hospital staff have left the room and Joyce is with her son, she doesn't want to accept what's before her eyes. We cut between her and the staff outside in the hall in what builds up to an incredible moment. The staff reacting to Joyce as she wails in pain is something that was just stuck in my chest, I could really feel it.
While some are saying that Breakthrough is a christian film, but personally it feels more like a film about community. It's about family, about friends, about everyone around us. It also captures some of the things you have to deal with in these situations. Although fleeting at the end of the film, we see John coming to terms with the fact he survived, his miracle is hard to take for other people and they feel like they need answers, but from where? Him?
Everything about the film felt thoughtful and real, even though some bits felt a little cramped at times. By that I mean they clearly wanted to show the "negativity" and realistic thinking of those around John, he didn't have good odds and everyone would be talking about that. But getting that in felt a little cluttered with everything else going on.
I enjoyed this "christian" film, or as I like to call it "film". I spent a significant amount of time with my sleeves pressed up under my eyes, and when the doctors on screen were telling people to breathe I was doing it to recover. It's not a pushy film, I didn't feel the urge to go and join a congregation after watching it, it's just a wonderful reminder that miracles can happen, and while you wait for them there will be people all around you for support even when you don't expect it.
What you should do
It may not be a film to watch for some, I imagine the content may bring back memories that are difficult, but if you're up to it then it's well worth a watch.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Just a smidge of Joyce's determination would be good.
John is off with his friends having fun, and what's more fun than playing out on a frozen lake? By the time they hear the crack it's too late, the three boys go under. With the emergency services on their way it's a countdown to rescuing them. Two of them have their head above water, but John, knocked unconscious while trying to help his friend out of the water, is sinking. When water rescue appears it may already be too late. They take the search slowly, but John could be anywhere, it's almost certainly too late. Tommy is about to call an end to the search when he hears someone telling him to go back, and there he is.
Rushed to the hospital, the doctors and staff work on trying to bring him back, but as the time elapses there is nothing to do but continue until his family arrive. Joyce, his mother, is devastated and not willing to accept that it's the end... and she prays, asking god to save her son... the monitor beeps to life.
Everywhere I see descriptions of this it says "christian drama". I honestly don't see that the word "christian" needs to be in there. Sure, Joyce prays a fair bit, and their pastor is in it a lot too, but it's still just a drama about something miraculous happening.
By far the best performance for me was Chrissy Metz. Joyce comes across as a very determined woman in everything that she does, and Metz really makes that stand out. From the happiness to the heartbreak, it's all believeable, which sometimes doesn't happen with films that are based on true stories.
I enjoyed Mike Colter as Tommy too. As a non-religious man trying to deal with what happened to him, and what he sees happening to John, the thought process was clear on his face and I liked how he visually interacted with those around him in those moments.
By far the strongest scene for me was the one I mentioned above in the hospital. I think it's always quite challenging to create something that has an impact on the viewer when they already know what the outcome is going to be. In this instance we already know that John doesn't die, we just don't know how the situation is remedied. The hospital staff have left the room and Joyce is with her son, she doesn't want to accept what's before her eyes. We cut between her and the staff outside in the hall in what builds up to an incredible moment. The staff reacting to Joyce as she wails in pain is something that was just stuck in my chest, I could really feel it.
While some are saying that Breakthrough is a christian film, but personally it feels more like a film about community. It's about family, about friends, about everyone around us. It also captures some of the things you have to deal with in these situations. Although fleeting at the end of the film, we see John coming to terms with the fact he survived, his miracle is hard to take for other people and they feel like they need answers, but from where? Him?
Everything about the film felt thoughtful and real, even though some bits felt a little cramped at times. By that I mean they clearly wanted to show the "negativity" and realistic thinking of those around John, he didn't have good odds and everyone would be talking about that. But getting that in felt a little cluttered with everything else going on.
I enjoyed this "christian" film, or as I like to call it "film". I spent a significant amount of time with my sleeves pressed up under my eyes, and when the doctors on screen were telling people to breathe I was doing it to recover. It's not a pushy film, I didn't feel the urge to go and join a congregation after watching it, it's just a wonderful reminder that miracles can happen, and while you wait for them there will be people all around you for support even when you don't expect it.
What you should do
It may not be a film to watch for some, I imagine the content may bring back memories that are difficult, but if you're up to it then it's well worth a watch.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Just a smidge of Joyce's determination would be good.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pompeii (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
The disaster movie has always been a genre guaranteed to create incredible box-office returns. If you look at Roland Emmerich’s impressive blockbuster hit 2012, which grossed over $750million, it is clear that destroying well-known landmarks = bums on seats.
However since 2012‘s 2009 release the genre has fallen into a dormant state. Nevertheless, four years later Paul W.S. Anderson attempts to reawaken this box-office behemoth with his take on the tragic true events at Pompeii, but does the film succeed in its task?
Partially is the short answer. Anderson’s first film since 2012’s disaster Resident Evil: Retribution is as cheesy as a Dairylea triangle, but it also has some stunning special effects to give it some life.
Game of Thrones’ Kit Harington stars as Milo, a slave captured by the Romans after they wiped out his entire family. He is taken to a gloriously recreated Pompeii and immediately sets his sights on the very beautiful Lady Cassia, played by a rather dull Emily Browning, who just so happens to be the daughter of the city ruler, Severus. I’m sure you can guess the plot…
What ensues is a cheesy mess of terrible acting and stilted dialogue that jars with the period nature of the film. Only the knowing of what is to come from Mt Vesuvius, which is beautifully rendered in CGI, stops the film from grinding to a halt.
Kiefer Sutherland dons a downright ridiculous English accent for the role of Senator Corvus, the chief antagonist in the film. He is on business in Pompeii to see if trade can be established and investment can be agreed with the great city of Rome – though this plot point gets lost along the way.
Another issue is the true story which Pompeii is based on. The great tale of tragedy and mother nature showing her ruthless side is one we all know – but all we really want to see is the mountain going boom. Unfortunately we must wait whilst Anderson tries his best to make us care about the characters with their sickly back-stories, for which he fails in breathtaking fashion.
Finally after nearly an hour of what feels like a poor-mans Gladiator we are treat to a stunning spectacle, as Mt Vesuvius explodes in rip-roaring style. As the mountain blows and the fireballs rage Anderson once again tries to get us interested in the paper-thin story, thankfully not pushing too hard this time, and he lets the special effects take over.
Historical accuracy is, surprisingly, very good. According to the director, Pompeii was faithfully recreated for the film with aerial shots of the city as it stands today topped up with CGI to show the thriving metropolis we see in the film.
Unfortunately, scientific accuracy takes a back-seat for the sake of high drama, which is the case with many films of this nature. The iconic pyroclastic flow, attributed to killing the majority of Pompeii’s inhabitants due to its huge speed and massive temperatures is slowed right down to ensure the film can last another ten minutes or so – though this is perhaps to be expected.
Overall, Paul W.S. Anderson has created a film which certainly looks the part, but is lacking in so many other areas. Kiefer Sutherland’s villain is completely upstaged by the constant shots of the volcano, which are almost pantomime like in their ‘it’s behind you’ staging, and the rest of the cast are wooden and not particularly likeable.
However, what it lacks in story and acting finesse it makes up in the beautiful special effects and engaging cinematography. It’s worth a watch just to see Pompeii get obliterated – which is probably not a very nice thing to say at all.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/05/03/pompeii-3d-review/
However since 2012‘s 2009 release the genre has fallen into a dormant state. Nevertheless, four years later Paul W.S. Anderson attempts to reawaken this box-office behemoth with his take on the tragic true events at Pompeii, but does the film succeed in its task?
Partially is the short answer. Anderson’s first film since 2012’s disaster Resident Evil: Retribution is as cheesy as a Dairylea triangle, but it also has some stunning special effects to give it some life.
Game of Thrones’ Kit Harington stars as Milo, a slave captured by the Romans after they wiped out his entire family. He is taken to a gloriously recreated Pompeii and immediately sets his sights on the very beautiful Lady Cassia, played by a rather dull Emily Browning, who just so happens to be the daughter of the city ruler, Severus. I’m sure you can guess the plot…
What ensues is a cheesy mess of terrible acting and stilted dialogue that jars with the period nature of the film. Only the knowing of what is to come from Mt Vesuvius, which is beautifully rendered in CGI, stops the film from grinding to a halt.
Kiefer Sutherland dons a downright ridiculous English accent for the role of Senator Corvus, the chief antagonist in the film. He is on business in Pompeii to see if trade can be established and investment can be agreed with the great city of Rome – though this plot point gets lost along the way.
Another issue is the true story which Pompeii is based on. The great tale of tragedy and mother nature showing her ruthless side is one we all know – but all we really want to see is the mountain going boom. Unfortunately we must wait whilst Anderson tries his best to make us care about the characters with their sickly back-stories, for which he fails in breathtaking fashion.
Finally after nearly an hour of what feels like a poor-mans Gladiator we are treat to a stunning spectacle, as Mt Vesuvius explodes in rip-roaring style. As the mountain blows and the fireballs rage Anderson once again tries to get us interested in the paper-thin story, thankfully not pushing too hard this time, and he lets the special effects take over.
Historical accuracy is, surprisingly, very good. According to the director, Pompeii was faithfully recreated for the film with aerial shots of the city as it stands today topped up with CGI to show the thriving metropolis we see in the film.
Unfortunately, scientific accuracy takes a back-seat for the sake of high drama, which is the case with many films of this nature. The iconic pyroclastic flow, attributed to killing the majority of Pompeii’s inhabitants due to its huge speed and massive temperatures is slowed right down to ensure the film can last another ten minutes or so – though this is perhaps to be expected.
Overall, Paul W.S. Anderson has created a film which certainly looks the part, but is lacking in so many other areas. Kiefer Sutherland’s villain is completely upstaged by the constant shots of the volcano, which are almost pantomime like in their ‘it’s behind you’ staging, and the rest of the cast are wooden and not particularly likeable.
However, what it lacks in story and acting finesse it makes up in the beautiful special effects and engaging cinematography. It’s worth a watch just to see Pompeii get obliterated – which is probably not a very nice thing to say at all.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/05/03/pompeii-3d-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Leatherheads (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The movie opens with John Krasinski’s character, “Carter Rutherford”, playing college-level football for Princeton at a bleacher-groaning, over-packed game chock full of screaming patrons and die-hard fans. The kid is a golden-child, a war hero, and the nation’s most promising young athlete in the good old year of 1925. Carter is dynamic, attractive, and exactly what the country needs at a time of World War I. It is little wonder his face plasters billboards across town, that his name is uttered with awe and adoration. In truth, how could you not? The kid had, after all, single-handedly forced a contingent of German soldiers to surrender without even shooting one bullet.
Cut to George Clooney’s character, the aging “Dodge Connelly”, playing pro-football in mire-like conditions; his audience a tangle of bored fans and uninspired locals. It is a far cry from the opulent circumstance of college-level football. Men, bedraggled and sweating under the promise of returning to work at the mines and fields if their football dreams go under, play with reckless abandon and forgotten morals in hopes of winning that next game. Yet, as fate will go, the Bulldogs lose their sponsorship and the team goes under, forcing men to return to their day-jobs and leaving Dodge without a future. The man has no marketable skills, no trade. He is a football player and is determined to see his team back in the game.
Of course, that isn’t the only bit of chaos. There has to be a girl; there is always a girl involved in stories like these. Enter Renée Zellweger’s character, the vivacious and equally tenacious “Lexie Littleton” – a news reporter for the Tribune. Lexie is on a mission to expose Carter Rutherford and get to the bottom of his infamous war story. It comes to no surprise that when Lexie and Dodge meet in a hotel lobby awaiting the arrival of Carter Rutherford and his manager, “CC Frazier” (played by Jonathan Pryce), that sparks immediately fly between them. Dodge has a proposal for CC and Carter: have Carter take a leave of absence from Princeton to play pro-football for the Bulldogs, thus saving pro-football and paying Carter for his efforts. Naturally, CC wants a cut from the profits and finds a way to do so to accommodate his own needs. Dodge, without any other alternative, agrees.
Meanwhile, Lexie is working her magic on Carter to try and weasel the true story out of him as best she can. Try as she might she cannot ignore Dodge, no matter how acid her tongue wags in his direction. In the end, Lexie gets her story yet realizes she must decide between exposing the truth or letting America bask in the glory of its self-proclaimed war-hero.
In review, there is a true chemistry between all of the main characters and both Zellweger and Clooney do a good job of conveying the vehement (and callous) emotion between Lexie and Dodge. However, no matter how funny the banter becomes between these three main characters or how well the scene plugs along, in the end the movie comes off as a passable but by no means memorable. Betimes it seems to stretch on and on and more then once I found myself looking at my clock. In truth, the movie didn’t need to be nearly two hours long. It felt two hours long which is never a good thing, especially when we’re talking about theatre seats.
That said, I thought the movie was a cute and enjoyable comedy. It won’t crack your funny bone but it will certainly tickle it more then once. All in all I give it 3.5 out of 5. It succeeded in making me laugh and did keep me entertained. Above all, I’m sure many will find it enjoyable to some extent.
Cut to George Clooney’s character, the aging “Dodge Connelly”, playing pro-football in mire-like conditions; his audience a tangle of bored fans and uninspired locals. It is a far cry from the opulent circumstance of college-level football. Men, bedraggled and sweating under the promise of returning to work at the mines and fields if their football dreams go under, play with reckless abandon and forgotten morals in hopes of winning that next game. Yet, as fate will go, the Bulldogs lose their sponsorship and the team goes under, forcing men to return to their day-jobs and leaving Dodge without a future. The man has no marketable skills, no trade. He is a football player and is determined to see his team back in the game.
Of course, that isn’t the only bit of chaos. There has to be a girl; there is always a girl involved in stories like these. Enter Renée Zellweger’s character, the vivacious and equally tenacious “Lexie Littleton” – a news reporter for the Tribune. Lexie is on a mission to expose Carter Rutherford and get to the bottom of his infamous war story. It comes to no surprise that when Lexie and Dodge meet in a hotel lobby awaiting the arrival of Carter Rutherford and his manager, “CC Frazier” (played by Jonathan Pryce), that sparks immediately fly between them. Dodge has a proposal for CC and Carter: have Carter take a leave of absence from Princeton to play pro-football for the Bulldogs, thus saving pro-football and paying Carter for his efforts. Naturally, CC wants a cut from the profits and finds a way to do so to accommodate his own needs. Dodge, without any other alternative, agrees.
Meanwhile, Lexie is working her magic on Carter to try and weasel the true story out of him as best she can. Try as she might she cannot ignore Dodge, no matter how acid her tongue wags in his direction. In the end, Lexie gets her story yet realizes she must decide between exposing the truth or letting America bask in the glory of its self-proclaimed war-hero.
In review, there is a true chemistry between all of the main characters and both Zellweger and Clooney do a good job of conveying the vehement (and callous) emotion between Lexie and Dodge. However, no matter how funny the banter becomes between these three main characters or how well the scene plugs along, in the end the movie comes off as a passable but by no means memorable. Betimes it seems to stretch on and on and more then once I found myself looking at my clock. In truth, the movie didn’t need to be nearly two hours long. It felt two hours long which is never a good thing, especially when we’re talking about theatre seats.
That said, I thought the movie was a cute and enjoyable comedy. It won’t crack your funny bone but it will certainly tickle it more then once. All in all I give it 3.5 out of 5. It succeeded in making me laugh and did keep me entertained. Above all, I’m sure many will find it enjoyable to some extent.
Andy K (10823 KP) rated The Blair Witch Project (1999) in Movies
Oct 18, 2019
While this film is credited as being the first "found footage" film ever made, it is not true. I found several websites even saying the same thing. Not true. That award goes to Cannibal Holocaust (I am pretty sure) which was release almost two decades earlier (1980 vs. 1999).
The film begins with sort of standard documentary fare showing interviews with the Maryland locals discussing if they have heard of the legend of the Blair Witch. For those that had, they recalled their own memories of the stories they had heard from others or from their childhood. Eventually, the documentary filmmakers meet the odd-looking Mary Brown who details her first hand experience with the demon recalling its weird hairy appearance.
Heather, Josh and Michael then decide to go for an outdoor wooded adventure in an attempt to locate and document evidence of the existence of the local legend themselves, not knowing what lies ahead for them. The journey starts out pretty normal with Heather doing most of the onscreen explanations, the other two mostly relegated to replying to her whims or arguing with her about various topics.
Eventually, a few bad thing start to happen including the loss of their woodland map and hearing strange sounds during the blackness of night. They now wander the woods becoming increasingly agitated with each other and their situation when it is revealed they may be walking in circles and are no closer to completing their quest or finding their way out. They see various various stick and rock formations which are not naturally occurring which means someone else is out there with them.
I remember sitting in a darkened theatre in 1999 hearing about this film briefly before its release. Not much was known at the time, and I recall this being one of the first films to have significant internet buzz beforehand. The internet was only a few years old at the time, so this was also a relatively new concept. Modern audiences are spoiled with so much content for every film available online, that everyone almost loses the feeling of being completely surprised by a film you knew virtually nothing about going in.
For Blair Witch, the added element of the "found footage" style was foreign to pretty much everyone which added to the hype and box office success of the film. Virtually the entire viewing public were not completely sure if what they were watching actually happened or this was fiction. It helped that writer/directors Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez used an unknown cast so seeing someone they recognized onscreen would not ruin the experience of believing its authenticity.
I am down on sloppy modern moviemakers most of the time these days relying so heavily on CGI and making movies look like pretty perfection rather than focusing on the most important thing for a horror film (or any film) a good screenplay and implied tension. For Blair Witch, it has been said some scenes were improvised or given a general direction but not a full script; however, that doesn't detract from the authentic nature of the situation.
The 2nd half of the film has some truly terrifying moments which happen in the background or off-screen showing you don't need to spend all your money on a CGI monster, just make it scary. The scene and keyart for the film showing the top half of Heather's head which she speaks into the camera explaining her terror and anguish is so believable and mesmerizing it send chills down my spine every time I watch it.
The film also get bagged for the ending which might be considered too short or anti-climactic; however, I think it's perfect and really the only way the movie could have gone.
The film begins with sort of standard documentary fare showing interviews with the Maryland locals discussing if they have heard of the legend of the Blair Witch. For those that had, they recalled their own memories of the stories they had heard from others or from their childhood. Eventually, the documentary filmmakers meet the odd-looking Mary Brown who details her first hand experience with the demon recalling its weird hairy appearance.
Heather, Josh and Michael then decide to go for an outdoor wooded adventure in an attempt to locate and document evidence of the existence of the local legend themselves, not knowing what lies ahead for them. The journey starts out pretty normal with Heather doing most of the onscreen explanations, the other two mostly relegated to replying to her whims or arguing with her about various topics.
Eventually, a few bad thing start to happen including the loss of their woodland map and hearing strange sounds during the blackness of night. They now wander the woods becoming increasingly agitated with each other and their situation when it is revealed they may be walking in circles and are no closer to completing their quest or finding their way out. They see various various stick and rock formations which are not naturally occurring which means someone else is out there with them.
I remember sitting in a darkened theatre in 1999 hearing about this film briefly before its release. Not much was known at the time, and I recall this being one of the first films to have significant internet buzz beforehand. The internet was only a few years old at the time, so this was also a relatively new concept. Modern audiences are spoiled with so much content for every film available online, that everyone almost loses the feeling of being completely surprised by a film you knew virtually nothing about going in.
For Blair Witch, the added element of the "found footage" style was foreign to pretty much everyone which added to the hype and box office success of the film. Virtually the entire viewing public were not completely sure if what they were watching actually happened or this was fiction. It helped that writer/directors Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez used an unknown cast so seeing someone they recognized onscreen would not ruin the experience of believing its authenticity.
I am down on sloppy modern moviemakers most of the time these days relying so heavily on CGI and making movies look like pretty perfection rather than focusing on the most important thing for a horror film (or any film) a good screenplay and implied tension. For Blair Witch, it has been said some scenes were improvised or given a general direction but not a full script; however, that doesn't detract from the authentic nature of the situation.
The 2nd half of the film has some truly terrifying moments which happen in the background or off-screen showing you don't need to spend all your money on a CGI monster, just make it scary. The scene and keyart for the film showing the top half of Heather's head which she speaks into the camera explaining her terror and anguish is so believable and mesmerizing it send chills down my spine every time I watch it.
The film also get bagged for the ending which might be considered too short or anti-climactic; however, I think it's perfect and really the only way the movie could have gone.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated David Attenborough: A Life on Our Planet (2020) in Movies
Oct 14, 2020
Bleak and interesting
David Attenborough is possibly the most recognised face (and voice) when it comes to nature and our planet, and it’d be safe to say he’s also one of the most respected advisors on the environment. Now 94 years old, A Life on Our Planet is his “witness statement” for the environment and details his 60+ year career and how steeply the planet has declined during this time.
In the opening scene of this documentary Attenborough is in Chernobyl, the site of one of the worst man-made disasters in history. His comparison of the impact of the Chernobyl disaster to the impact humanity is having gradually on the environment is not one that many would have even considered, but it’s provides a stark warning. And it continues in this same vein throughout.
Whilst this still features beautifully captured videos of nature and historical footage of Attenborough throughout his career, this documentary has very dark and bleak overtones. Even the statistics on world population, carbon content and decrease in wilderness provided for certain years in Attenborough’s career prove to be crystal clear and unmistakably illustrating just how badly we’ve treated our planet in the space of a mere 90 years. For reference, wilderness in the 1930s was at 66% - in 2020 it has nearly halved to 35%. When you see it there in black and white, it’s terrifying.
Even more terrifying is Attenborough’s glimpse into the future. Showing what will happen to us and our planet in the 2030s to 2100s and beyond, it’s scarier than any horror film you will ever see. And what’s worrying is that the chances of this happening is a lot more likely than anything you see in a scary movie.
Fortunately this does move away from the rather effective warnings and dark tones and goes on to discuss how we can change to prevent this bleak future from coming true. These resolutions – stopping deforestation and overfishing, stabilising the population, more plant based diets – are nothing that we haven’t heard of before. However Attenborough does at least go on to suggest how we as a planet can move towards achieving the above and promote some rather positive success stories where this has already been achieved in a number of places across the globe.
My problem with this documentary is two fold. For one, Attenborough steers clear of the politics and blame game and doesn’t point the finger at any areas of society that may be more at fault than others (i.e. the super wealthy and their excesses). He just seems like he’s being too nice when really he needs to call out the people and areas that hold more responsibility.
My other issue is that he doesn’t relate the solutions to how we can help as individuals. Other than moving to a more plant based diet, the solutions proposed are not things that Joe public can help with and for me personally I found this very frustrating. I want to know what I personally can do to help and sadly I have no control over poaching, deforestation or over-fishing. I barely have any input into my local council’s initiative to build thousands of houses on the greenbelt behind my house, so the issues and solutions discussed here seem rather overwhelming and feel almost impossible to achieve.
However despite this, Attenborough has created a rather bleak and stark documentary that proves to be both depressing and incredibly moving and informative to watch. It will undoubtedly spur many into action and prove to be the warning we as a people need, especially with the final scenes showing how the wilderness has returned to Chernobyl and Attenborough’s reminder that we’re not saving the planet, we’re saving ourselves. I just hope those higher up that have the true power to put the solutions in place have watched this and taken note.
In the opening scene of this documentary Attenborough is in Chernobyl, the site of one of the worst man-made disasters in history. His comparison of the impact of the Chernobyl disaster to the impact humanity is having gradually on the environment is not one that many would have even considered, but it’s provides a stark warning. And it continues in this same vein throughout.
Whilst this still features beautifully captured videos of nature and historical footage of Attenborough throughout his career, this documentary has very dark and bleak overtones. Even the statistics on world population, carbon content and decrease in wilderness provided for certain years in Attenborough’s career prove to be crystal clear and unmistakably illustrating just how badly we’ve treated our planet in the space of a mere 90 years. For reference, wilderness in the 1930s was at 66% - in 2020 it has nearly halved to 35%. When you see it there in black and white, it’s terrifying.
Even more terrifying is Attenborough’s glimpse into the future. Showing what will happen to us and our planet in the 2030s to 2100s and beyond, it’s scarier than any horror film you will ever see. And what’s worrying is that the chances of this happening is a lot more likely than anything you see in a scary movie.
Fortunately this does move away from the rather effective warnings and dark tones and goes on to discuss how we can change to prevent this bleak future from coming true. These resolutions – stopping deforestation and overfishing, stabilising the population, more plant based diets – are nothing that we haven’t heard of before. However Attenborough does at least go on to suggest how we as a planet can move towards achieving the above and promote some rather positive success stories where this has already been achieved in a number of places across the globe.
My problem with this documentary is two fold. For one, Attenborough steers clear of the politics and blame game and doesn’t point the finger at any areas of society that may be more at fault than others (i.e. the super wealthy and their excesses). He just seems like he’s being too nice when really he needs to call out the people and areas that hold more responsibility.
My other issue is that he doesn’t relate the solutions to how we can help as individuals. Other than moving to a more plant based diet, the solutions proposed are not things that Joe public can help with and for me personally I found this very frustrating. I want to know what I personally can do to help and sadly I have no control over poaching, deforestation or over-fishing. I barely have any input into my local council’s initiative to build thousands of houses on the greenbelt behind my house, so the issues and solutions discussed here seem rather overwhelming and feel almost impossible to achieve.
However despite this, Attenborough has created a rather bleak and stark documentary that proves to be both depressing and incredibly moving and informative to watch. It will undoubtedly spur many into action and prove to be the warning we as a people need, especially with the final scenes showing how the wilderness has returned to Chernobyl and Attenborough’s reminder that we’re not saving the planet, we’re saving ourselves. I just hope those higher up that have the true power to put the solutions in place have watched this and taken note.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Christine (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
If it bleeds, it leads.
Life is precious. Bad times always get good again eventually. Winter turns to spring and you feel the warmth of the sun on your face again. So what drives someone – anyone – to the point of despair sufficient for them to ignore all of the potential upturns and to take their own life?
Christine tells the tragic tale of Florida TV news reporter Christine Chubbuck who committed suicide live on air in 1974. Yes, this is a spoiler, but since most people have some sense of what a film is about before they go to see it, it’s not really a big one. And I think in this case, knowing the outcome is pretty essential since otherwise you will likely spend 2 hours getting increasingly irritated by the erratic behaviour of the lead character and may possibly turn it off. With this movie, the telling is in the journey – not the destination.
London-born Rebecca Hall (“The Town”) plays the 30 year old virgin Christine; a damaged article with past mental issues, she has been moved by her mother Peg (J Smith-Cameron) from Boston to Florida to make a fresh start. But the station is struggling and Christine’s insistence on pursuing dull but worthy stories, such as zoning disputes, isn’t helping: she is driving her boss (Tracy Letts) to distraction. Despite her spiky demeanour and unapproachable nature, her colleagues including Jean (Maria Dizzia), the show’s anchor (and potential deflowerer) George (Michael C Hall) and weatherman Steve (Timothy Simons from “Veep”) all do their best to support her. It is part of the true tragedy of the piece that her downward spiral continues despite their best efforts.
Hall is outstanding in the role. She portrays the crazily compulsive behaviour of Chubbuck extremely well: perfectionism gone wild as she attempts to edit out 3 seconds off a clip while the film is already in the machine. At times the other-worldliness and creepiness of her character become extremely unsettling; an excruciating scene with a married couple in a bar being a case in point. Overall it’s an extremely thoughtful portrayal that is as quiet and unassuming as Ruth Negga’s in “Loving” (but without the smiles or the charm). I would like to think that after the Oscars team picked the ‘obvious contenders’ of Portman, Stone and Huppert, and with a place ‘reserved’ for Streep, they were left with Negga and Hall and had a “dammit, we can only pick 1 out of 2 here” moment.
Letts as the crotchety station chief also delivers a fine performance, and it’s a shame that the script never gave us the chance to see his post-shooting reactions, since the ‘if only’ ramifications for him in particular must have been huge.
In retrospect, Chubbuck’s actions were bizarre: taking her life in such a public way (and insisting the show be recorded for her “reels”) strikes of narcissism and a bitter revenge. While the film is no doubt based on the true recollections of the real-life participants, the screenplay by Craig Shilowich, in an impressive writing debut, for me never quite closed that loop: why this way rather that a car and a hosepipe?
Directed by Antonio Campos, this is never an easy watch. It’s a bit like watching a car crash in ultra-slow motion, and pretty much mandates that you watch an episode of “Father Ted” afterwards to cheer yourself up! But it’s a fascinating study in mental decline, and it’s a useful reminder that it behoves all of us to pay more attention to others around us and reach out with real help if needed before the worst can happen.
Christine tells the tragic tale of Florida TV news reporter Christine Chubbuck who committed suicide live on air in 1974. Yes, this is a spoiler, but since most people have some sense of what a film is about before they go to see it, it’s not really a big one. And I think in this case, knowing the outcome is pretty essential since otherwise you will likely spend 2 hours getting increasingly irritated by the erratic behaviour of the lead character and may possibly turn it off. With this movie, the telling is in the journey – not the destination.
London-born Rebecca Hall (“The Town”) plays the 30 year old virgin Christine; a damaged article with past mental issues, she has been moved by her mother Peg (J Smith-Cameron) from Boston to Florida to make a fresh start. But the station is struggling and Christine’s insistence on pursuing dull but worthy stories, such as zoning disputes, isn’t helping: she is driving her boss (Tracy Letts) to distraction. Despite her spiky demeanour and unapproachable nature, her colleagues including Jean (Maria Dizzia), the show’s anchor (and potential deflowerer) George (Michael C Hall) and weatherman Steve (Timothy Simons from “Veep”) all do their best to support her. It is part of the true tragedy of the piece that her downward spiral continues despite their best efforts.
Hall is outstanding in the role. She portrays the crazily compulsive behaviour of Chubbuck extremely well: perfectionism gone wild as she attempts to edit out 3 seconds off a clip while the film is already in the machine. At times the other-worldliness and creepiness of her character become extremely unsettling; an excruciating scene with a married couple in a bar being a case in point. Overall it’s an extremely thoughtful portrayal that is as quiet and unassuming as Ruth Negga’s in “Loving” (but without the smiles or the charm). I would like to think that after the Oscars team picked the ‘obvious contenders’ of Portman, Stone and Huppert, and with a place ‘reserved’ for Streep, they were left with Negga and Hall and had a “dammit, we can only pick 1 out of 2 here” moment.
Letts as the crotchety station chief also delivers a fine performance, and it’s a shame that the script never gave us the chance to see his post-shooting reactions, since the ‘if only’ ramifications for him in particular must have been huge.
In retrospect, Chubbuck’s actions were bizarre: taking her life in such a public way (and insisting the show be recorded for her “reels”) strikes of narcissism and a bitter revenge. While the film is no doubt based on the true recollections of the real-life participants, the screenplay by Craig Shilowich, in an impressive writing debut, for me never quite closed that loop: why this way rather that a car and a hosepipe?
Directed by Antonio Campos, this is never an easy watch. It’s a bit like watching a car crash in ultra-slow motion, and pretty much mandates that you watch an episode of “Father Ted” afterwards to cheer yourself up! But it’s a fascinating study in mental decline, and it’s a useful reminder that it behoves all of us to pay more attention to others around us and reach out with real help if needed before the worst can happen.
ArecRain (8 KP) rated Making Waves (League of 7, #1) in Books
Jan 18, 2018
As a first erotic novel, I believe this was a great choice. I bought this book years ago when I was still young and terrified about my parents finding out. I was just a freshman in high school looking for something that normal romance novels couldnt give me. I was so tired of all the sugary innuendoes. If I am going to read about people having sex, I want clear descriptions about what is going on or nothing at all. Innuendoes that compare a ladys part to food just grosses me out; and comparing an orgasm to an explosion of stars is just silly. Of course, I thought all this before I lost my
virginity at the ripe old age of 19 (yay for beating teen pregnancy?) And, I still think this today.
But I digress. This book is actually an anthology of two stories by different authors, both stories water related. Thus, the title.
The first story is titled Liquid Dreams by Cathryn Fox. From the very first page, Fox jumps right into the sex. When I first read it, I felt so scandalous that I knew my cheeks were red from embarrassment. Now, looking back, I realize how silly I was considering I have read much more graphic scenes since. Liquid Dreams does not want of sex scene. In fact, I am pretty sure that 85% of the novel is about the main characters partaking in foreplay. Another 10% is devoted to sex.
The plot consists of a young woman, Katrina, who keeps having dreams about a man that comes to her out of the sea. He pleases her, she pleases him. And then, by swallowing his semen, she starts regaining memories from a past life. Eventually, she figures out that the man, Ranek, is her lover from that. She also gradually realizes that she has been horribly miserable with her life because it is not her true life. The only problem is Raneks brother is hell-bent on seeing them both suffer.
A pretty straight forward plot with no twists or surprises and plenty of steamy sex scenes to call it erotic. The only problem I had with this novel was the way she covered her memories. Everything else was pretty believable for a fantasy erotic novel except that. In fact, it was pretty weird.
The second novel is called Dolphins Playground by Jaci Burton. At first, I was a little hesitant to read it just because of the title, but I sucked it up and read on. Unlike Fox, Burton is more about the plot-line than sex. This short story is about a marine biologist, Jasmine, who would rather spend her time with dolphins than people, especially her big wig boss who cares more about than living things. When she finds some sick dolphins, she decides to take them in much to the chagrin of her soon to be lover, Triton. Triton just so happens to be able to turn into a dolphin and is able to communicate with them. In fact, the dolphins that are now in Jasmines custody actually belong to Triton, who is also trying to find a cure with the diseased dolphins.
Since he cant get the dolphins out of the facility, Triton decides to use it, and Jasmine, to his advantage in his search for the cure. They, of course, hook up during this search and do end up having a happy ending.
The writing was pretty simple in terms of vocabulary and biology terms. However, I really enjoyed Triton and Jasmines witty banter and that the you could cut the sexual tension between them with a knife. It was the characters that made this story, honestly.
virginity at the ripe old age of 19 (yay for beating teen pregnancy?) And, I still think this today.
But I digress. This book is actually an anthology of two stories by different authors, both stories water related. Thus, the title.
The first story is titled Liquid Dreams by Cathryn Fox. From the very first page, Fox jumps right into the sex. When I first read it, I felt so scandalous that I knew my cheeks were red from embarrassment. Now, looking back, I realize how silly I was considering I have read much more graphic scenes since. Liquid Dreams does not want of sex scene. In fact, I am pretty sure that 85% of the novel is about the main characters partaking in foreplay. Another 10% is devoted to sex.
The plot consists of a young woman, Katrina, who keeps having dreams about a man that comes to her out of the sea. He pleases her, she pleases him. And then, by swallowing his semen, she starts regaining memories from a past life. Eventually, she figures out that the man, Ranek, is her lover from that. She also gradually realizes that she has been horribly miserable with her life because it is not her true life. The only problem is Raneks brother is hell-bent on seeing them both suffer.
A pretty straight forward plot with no twists or surprises and plenty of steamy sex scenes to call it erotic. The only problem I had with this novel was the way she covered her memories. Everything else was pretty believable for a fantasy erotic novel except that. In fact, it was pretty weird.
The second novel is called Dolphins Playground by Jaci Burton. At first, I was a little hesitant to read it just because of the title, but I sucked it up and read on. Unlike Fox, Burton is more about the plot-line than sex. This short story is about a marine biologist, Jasmine, who would rather spend her time with dolphins than people, especially her big wig boss who cares more about than living things. When she finds some sick dolphins, she decides to take them in much to the chagrin of her soon to be lover, Triton. Triton just so happens to be able to turn into a dolphin and is able to communicate with them. In fact, the dolphins that are now in Jasmines custody actually belong to Triton, who is also trying to find a cure with the diseased dolphins.
Since he cant get the dolphins out of the facility, Triton decides to use it, and Jasmine, to his advantage in his search for the cure. They, of course, hook up during this search and do end up having a happy ending.
The writing was pretty simple in terms of vocabulary and biology terms. However, I really enjoyed Triton and Jasmines witty banter and that the you could cut the sexual tension between them with a knife. It was the characters that made this story, honestly.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated The Camelot Shadow in Books
Jun 3, 2018
‘’I can either tell you my tale, or I can respond to your feeble witticisms. I cannot, in my mildly inebriated state, do both.’’
This is not your usual story related to King Arthur, Merlin and Camelot. This will, in fact, be quite different story and not only unusual, but one of a kind.
We go back in time when Queen Victoria was ruling over England. In a time when the author really liked to point out the fact that the characters are using trains. It was pointed out so much, that I had to do a bit of research to see if trains existed in that time. They did – apparently England had the oldest rail transport in the world. And Queen Victoria was one of the first royals to use that form of transport too.
Now, I am not even sure why I kept going on about trains… Back to the story…
The Camelot Shadow covers the story of Lord Alfred Fitzwilliam, a man whose wife is ill from an incurable illness. When an opportunity arises, giving him the chance and hope that he might save the life of his lover, he goes on a mission to find an object from the time when King Arthur was the ruler of England, and Merlin was his companion.
With a help from a group of people, Alfred digs the history and the stories of the past, only to discover that not everything he believed in was true, and not everyone that he trusted is his ally.
A story that reminded me of Dan Brown’s work. Quite similar in the sense of clues, history, what is a myth and what is a fact, though also quite distinctive, as it covers people’s characters so well, describing their personalities in a powerful way.
‘’Wealth. Status. Happiness. A perfect life. All built on an ephemeral foundation, an impossibility masking a lie that, if exposed, if openly acknowledged, would bring it all crashing down around our heads.’’
When a great disappointment comes around, and all hope is gone, people change, and people feel things. A person starts to wonder what they did wrong, what could they have done differently, what if… Alfred is one of the people where we will see his change over the chapters. For better or for worse, I’ll let you decide.
‘’It was Guinevere’s infidelity that brought down Arthur’s Camelot’’ – he said, wiping a trickle of Scotch from his chin with the back of his sleeve. ‘’It was God’s cruelty that brought down mine.’’
A book that explains good and evil in the unusual way. I thought I could explain good and evil, but sometimes my evil can do you good, and your good can do harm to everyone. And power… oh what people are capable to do for power…
‘’Power, Arthur had taught him, was not something to covet, but rather something to treat in the same manner one might handle a wild mastiff – with considerable respect, constant vigilance, and a trace of fear. ‘’
If you are a fan of history fiction, and stories about Arthur and Merlin, you would definitely want to dive in into this book and get lost into the world. And that is not the only thing that this book covers… It covers hope, faith, loss, love, good, evil, power, guilt and everything in between. Get ready for an adventure. One full of bravery and magic. And maybe… maybe some hope.
A huge thank you to the author, Sean Gibson, who was kind enough to give me an e-copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
This is not your usual story related to King Arthur, Merlin and Camelot. This will, in fact, be quite different story and not only unusual, but one of a kind.
We go back in time when Queen Victoria was ruling over England. In a time when the author really liked to point out the fact that the characters are using trains. It was pointed out so much, that I had to do a bit of research to see if trains existed in that time. They did – apparently England had the oldest rail transport in the world. And Queen Victoria was one of the first royals to use that form of transport too.
Now, I am not even sure why I kept going on about trains… Back to the story…
The Camelot Shadow covers the story of Lord Alfred Fitzwilliam, a man whose wife is ill from an incurable illness. When an opportunity arises, giving him the chance and hope that he might save the life of his lover, he goes on a mission to find an object from the time when King Arthur was the ruler of England, and Merlin was his companion.
With a help from a group of people, Alfred digs the history and the stories of the past, only to discover that not everything he believed in was true, and not everyone that he trusted is his ally.
A story that reminded me of Dan Brown’s work. Quite similar in the sense of clues, history, what is a myth and what is a fact, though also quite distinctive, as it covers people’s characters so well, describing their personalities in a powerful way.
‘’Wealth. Status. Happiness. A perfect life. All built on an ephemeral foundation, an impossibility masking a lie that, if exposed, if openly acknowledged, would bring it all crashing down around our heads.’’
When a great disappointment comes around, and all hope is gone, people change, and people feel things. A person starts to wonder what they did wrong, what could they have done differently, what if… Alfred is one of the people where we will see his change over the chapters. For better or for worse, I’ll let you decide.
‘’It was Guinevere’s infidelity that brought down Arthur’s Camelot’’ – he said, wiping a trickle of Scotch from his chin with the back of his sleeve. ‘’It was God’s cruelty that brought down mine.’’
A book that explains good and evil in the unusual way. I thought I could explain good and evil, but sometimes my evil can do you good, and your good can do harm to everyone. And power… oh what people are capable to do for power…
‘’Power, Arthur had taught him, was not something to covet, but rather something to treat in the same manner one might handle a wild mastiff – with considerable respect, constant vigilance, and a trace of fear. ‘’
If you are a fan of history fiction, and stories about Arthur and Merlin, you would definitely want to dive in into this book and get lost into the world. And that is not the only thing that this book covers… It covers hope, faith, loss, love, good, evil, power, guilt and everything in between. Get ready for an adventure. One full of bravery and magic. And maybe… maybe some hope.
A huge thank you to the author, Sean Gibson, who was kind enough to give me an e-copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
Samantha Hemsley (2 KP) rated The Reader on the 6.27 in Books
Jun 30, 2019
Feel-good (4 more)
Simple easy-to read style
A celebration of the power of reading
Lovable characters
Brilliant translation from French
I'm so glad to have come across this little hidden gem.
The unfortunately named (apparently -- I think you have to be a French speaker to really understand the reasoning) Guylain Vignolles is 36, lives alone with his beloved goldfish and works in a job he detests -- operating a book-pulping machine in a publishing factory. Guylain alleviates his resultant mental anguish by rescuing the occasional surviving pages at the end of each shift and reading them aloud to his fellow commuters on the 6.27 train each morning much to their mingled bewilderment and joy. Featuring some wonderful larger-than-life characters such as the classical theatre loving security guard who only speaks in Verse and the reformed alcoholic engaged in a quest to be reunited with his missing limbs and the toilet attendant with a secret talent for writing, this book is quirky and a bit ridiculous in the very best way.
As a fellow book lover, I empathised with Guylain's heartbreak over destroying so many books day in and day out. I can't even bear to write in a book or fold the corner of a page never mind reduce them to a pulp! I absolutely loved the way he attempted to do the books justice by giving what pages he could save an audience. This book is a real testament to the power and pleasure of reading aloud which is something I'm hugely passionate about -- I even wrote one of my university dissertations about the benefits of reading aloud with children.
I also loved its message of how reading can unite people, despite it being seen as a generally quite solitary or even introverted activity. Through his reading, Guylain finds himself being invited to do regular readings at a care home, much to the delight of the residents and when he finds a USB stick on his usual train seat containing over 70 diary entries, the lonely Guylain might just find that it leads to true love.
As well as being very charming and quaint, the novel manages to avoid becoming trite with its very astute observations and brilliant humour -- often laugh-out-loud funny. The prose is simple but very skillful -- especially the verses concocted by Yvon the security guard. Huge credit must also be given to the translator here. (The book was originally written in French) To translate rhyme into a different language so that it still rhymes and still makes perfect sense in the context can't be an easy feat!
My only criticism is that the book is very short -- fewer than 200 pages. Apparently the author is usually a writer of short stories and this is his first novel. This definitely shows as the ending feels very abrupt and definitely as if it could have done with another 50 pages or so; perhaps even more. I wasn't ready to say goodbye yet! Having said that, the ending was very sweet and it was only its abruptness that prevented it from being 100% satisfactory. I wouldn't quite say that there are any loose ends but it would have been nice to find out a little more about some of the characters and their stories.
Overall though this was a really lovely feel-good read that will appeal to anyone who loves literature and zany but endearing characters. I read one review that said the plot was "outlandish" and the characters "unbelievable" but I believe this reviewer was missing the point. This book champions the escapist qualities of reading and to have a story and characters who perhaps just slightly transcend reality can only elevate the escapism just that bit more. Feasibility be damned, I loved Guylain and his supporting cast members and I think I could easily read this short but sweet little story again and again!
The unfortunately named (apparently -- I think you have to be a French speaker to really understand the reasoning) Guylain Vignolles is 36, lives alone with his beloved goldfish and works in a job he detests -- operating a book-pulping machine in a publishing factory. Guylain alleviates his resultant mental anguish by rescuing the occasional surviving pages at the end of each shift and reading them aloud to his fellow commuters on the 6.27 train each morning much to their mingled bewilderment and joy. Featuring some wonderful larger-than-life characters such as the classical theatre loving security guard who only speaks in Verse and the reformed alcoholic engaged in a quest to be reunited with his missing limbs and the toilet attendant with a secret talent for writing, this book is quirky and a bit ridiculous in the very best way.
As a fellow book lover, I empathised with Guylain's heartbreak over destroying so many books day in and day out. I can't even bear to write in a book or fold the corner of a page never mind reduce them to a pulp! I absolutely loved the way he attempted to do the books justice by giving what pages he could save an audience. This book is a real testament to the power and pleasure of reading aloud which is something I'm hugely passionate about -- I even wrote one of my university dissertations about the benefits of reading aloud with children.
I also loved its message of how reading can unite people, despite it being seen as a generally quite solitary or even introverted activity. Through his reading, Guylain finds himself being invited to do regular readings at a care home, much to the delight of the residents and when he finds a USB stick on his usual train seat containing over 70 diary entries, the lonely Guylain might just find that it leads to true love.
As well as being very charming and quaint, the novel manages to avoid becoming trite with its very astute observations and brilliant humour -- often laugh-out-loud funny. The prose is simple but very skillful -- especially the verses concocted by Yvon the security guard. Huge credit must also be given to the translator here. (The book was originally written in French) To translate rhyme into a different language so that it still rhymes and still makes perfect sense in the context can't be an easy feat!
My only criticism is that the book is very short -- fewer than 200 pages. Apparently the author is usually a writer of short stories and this is his first novel. This definitely shows as the ending feels very abrupt and definitely as if it could have done with another 50 pages or so; perhaps even more. I wasn't ready to say goodbye yet! Having said that, the ending was very sweet and it was only its abruptness that prevented it from being 100% satisfactory. I wouldn't quite say that there are any loose ends but it would have been nice to find out a little more about some of the characters and their stories.
Overall though this was a really lovely feel-good read that will appeal to anyone who loves literature and zany but endearing characters. I read one review that said the plot was "outlandish" and the characters "unbelievable" but I believe this reviewer was missing the point. This book champions the escapist qualities of reading and to have a story and characters who perhaps just slightly transcend reality can only elevate the escapism just that bit more. Feasibility be damned, I loved Guylain and his supporting cast members and I think I could easily read this short but sweet little story again and again!