Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Adrift (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Hurricane Raymond has been upgraded to a category 5”
“Should we be worried” says Tami. Well, yes dear, you really should.
In the glorious surroundings of Tahiti, the American footloose traveller Tami Oldham (Shailene Woodley, “Divergent trilogy“, “The Descendents) meets British footloose traveller Richard Sharp (Sam Claflin, “Journey’s End“, “Me Before You“) and a nautical-based love beckons. Richard is hired by his friends Peter (Jeffrey Thomas) and Christine (Elizabeth Hawthorne) to sail their luxury 44 foot yacht Hazana from Tahiti to Tami’s home city of San Diego. But they hadn’t reckoned on the decidedly un-romantic attentions of Raymond and severely battered and bruised it’s a battle for survival on the vast expanse of the Pacific.
I was intrigued by this film as it seems to have divided the professional critics’ opinions: Kevin Maher in The Times gave it five stars… five! Conversely Edward Porter in The Sunday Times gave it two stars. After seeing the film, I’m with Mr Maher on this one (breaking convention as I haven’t exactly been in tune with this reviewer recently!).
As a story with romantic undertones, the film will live or die on your belief in this aspect. And fortunately the romance works. There is real chemistry between the pair despite them striking you as an odd couple. This is in no small part to the quality of the acting: Claflin proves again that he is a safe pair of hands as a male lead, but it’s Shailene Woodley, who has to carry large portions of the film single-handedly, who again demonstrates just how excellent an actress she is. The camera of Tarentino favourite Robert Richardson (“The Hateful Eight“, “Django Unchained”) stays tightly on Woodley’s features dramatically capturing her tiniest of grimaces.
Woodley is also deliciously un-Hollywood, getting to where she has through acting talent as much as her looks. Yes, she has a great body (liberally, perhaps a tad lasciviously, featured here both above and under the water) but her face is gloriously assymettical with little wrinkles appearing unexpectedly when she grins. She’s a good role model for young girls that perfection is not a pre–requisite for success. (What’s perhaps less good, role-model-wise, is that Woodley allegedly ate only 350 calories a day to get to the emaciated state seen at the end of the film! But to compensate, it’s notable that she looks so much better/sexier at the start of the film than at the end).
It’s also interesting to note that the 27-year old Woodley is also a co-producer on the film, a sign perhaps that as well as being the ‘Meryl Streep of the future'(TM), she is also likely to become a significant mover and shaker in Hollywood when getting there.
A bit like “The Shallows“, it’s unapologetically a B movie, but it’s delivered with such style and chutzpah that it drives its way through the apallingly cheesy dialogue just as the poor Hazana bashes its way throught the mountainous seas. It’s even self-mocking, with Tami rolling her eyes at the corniness of Richard’s, very English, attempts at romantic dialogue. The script is more successful in establishing back-stories for Tami and Richard, demonstrating a degree of parallelism that perhaps better explains their mutual attraction. The irony of fate taking Tami back to her damaged past is exquisite.
A controversial and brave decision by Icelandic director Baltasar Kormákur is to constantly flashback between the survival scenes and Tami and Richard’s courtship that leads up to the cataclismic event. This can be a little distracting, but given the gut-wrenching twist in the third act a linear storytelling would simply have not worked. It’s very well done too, with matched cross-cuts that really work well. Kormákur’s previous film “Everest” was his biggest hit to date, and I noted the cheeky addition of the book “Everest” on the bookshelf on Richard’s boat! (As an aside, “Everest” is for some reason the film review on One Mann’s Movies that has been viewed more often than any other… no idea why… must be down to search engine results!)
Extraordinarily, it’s a true story with the closing frames of the film being genuinely moving.
With many similarities to the excellent Robert Redford thriller “All Is Lost”, this is a robust and enthralling thriller-cum-romance that unusually delivers on both counts. The romance is believable and the thrills suitably thrilling, especially when a panic-ridden Tami is separated from her one patch of dry land. Although slightly let down by some dodgy dialogue, sitting amongst all the big-hitter summer blockbusters this is a movie you should definitely seek out.
In the glorious surroundings of Tahiti, the American footloose traveller Tami Oldham (Shailene Woodley, “Divergent trilogy“, “The Descendents) meets British footloose traveller Richard Sharp (Sam Claflin, “Journey’s End“, “Me Before You“) and a nautical-based love beckons. Richard is hired by his friends Peter (Jeffrey Thomas) and Christine (Elizabeth Hawthorne) to sail their luxury 44 foot yacht Hazana from Tahiti to Tami’s home city of San Diego. But they hadn’t reckoned on the decidedly un-romantic attentions of Raymond and severely battered and bruised it’s a battle for survival on the vast expanse of the Pacific.
I was intrigued by this film as it seems to have divided the professional critics’ opinions: Kevin Maher in The Times gave it five stars… five! Conversely Edward Porter in The Sunday Times gave it two stars. After seeing the film, I’m with Mr Maher on this one (breaking convention as I haven’t exactly been in tune with this reviewer recently!).
As a story with romantic undertones, the film will live or die on your belief in this aspect. And fortunately the romance works. There is real chemistry between the pair despite them striking you as an odd couple. This is in no small part to the quality of the acting: Claflin proves again that he is a safe pair of hands as a male lead, but it’s Shailene Woodley, who has to carry large portions of the film single-handedly, who again demonstrates just how excellent an actress she is. The camera of Tarentino favourite Robert Richardson (“The Hateful Eight“, “Django Unchained”) stays tightly on Woodley’s features dramatically capturing her tiniest of grimaces.
Woodley is also deliciously un-Hollywood, getting to where she has through acting talent as much as her looks. Yes, she has a great body (liberally, perhaps a tad lasciviously, featured here both above and under the water) but her face is gloriously assymettical with little wrinkles appearing unexpectedly when she grins. She’s a good role model for young girls that perfection is not a pre–requisite for success. (What’s perhaps less good, role-model-wise, is that Woodley allegedly ate only 350 calories a day to get to the emaciated state seen at the end of the film! But to compensate, it’s notable that she looks so much better/sexier at the start of the film than at the end).
It’s also interesting to note that the 27-year old Woodley is also a co-producer on the film, a sign perhaps that as well as being the ‘Meryl Streep of the future'(TM), she is also likely to become a significant mover and shaker in Hollywood when getting there.
A bit like “The Shallows“, it’s unapologetically a B movie, but it’s delivered with such style and chutzpah that it drives its way through the apallingly cheesy dialogue just as the poor Hazana bashes its way throught the mountainous seas. It’s even self-mocking, with Tami rolling her eyes at the corniness of Richard’s, very English, attempts at romantic dialogue. The script is more successful in establishing back-stories for Tami and Richard, demonstrating a degree of parallelism that perhaps better explains their mutual attraction. The irony of fate taking Tami back to her damaged past is exquisite.
A controversial and brave decision by Icelandic director Baltasar Kormákur is to constantly flashback between the survival scenes and Tami and Richard’s courtship that leads up to the cataclismic event. This can be a little distracting, but given the gut-wrenching twist in the third act a linear storytelling would simply have not worked. It’s very well done too, with matched cross-cuts that really work well. Kormákur’s previous film “Everest” was his biggest hit to date, and I noted the cheeky addition of the book “Everest” on the bookshelf on Richard’s boat! (As an aside, “Everest” is for some reason the film review on One Mann’s Movies that has been viewed more often than any other… no idea why… must be down to search engine results!)
Extraordinarily, it’s a true story with the closing frames of the film being genuinely moving.
With many similarities to the excellent Robert Redford thriller “All Is Lost”, this is a robust and enthralling thriller-cum-romance that unusually delivers on both counts. The romance is believable and the thrills suitably thrilling, especially when a panic-ridden Tami is separated from her one patch of dry land. Although slightly let down by some dodgy dialogue, sitting amongst all the big-hitter summer blockbusters this is a movie you should definitely seek out.
Nick Friesen (96 KP) rated Blade Runner (1982) in Movies
Jul 13, 2017
Dark and gorgeous setting (4 more)
Harrison Ford
Thought-provoking premise
That moody Vangelis score
Rutger Hauer
Best in Class Cyberpunk Neo-Noir
Most Sci-Fi fans these days probably rank Blade Runner somewhere in their top five favorites. Its status and influence on Sci-Fi, especially in the Cyberpunk sub-genre, is undeniable. When it was first released in 1982, however, it was not so well appreciated. It was met with polarized reviews and underwhelming domestic box office figures. This was probably due to some misplaced expectations of the movie. The studio erroneously marketed Blade Runner as an action/adventure, and not to mention, Harrison Ford was riding the fame of another Sci-Fi franchise that was much more action-oriented. It's no surprise then, that audiences and critics alike were initially turned off by the slow-burn pacing of detective noir that Blade Runner pulled into a science fiction setting. Today, Blade Runner is a celebrated masterpiece of filmmaking and adored by fans around the world. However, with a sequel coming soon, those new to the franchise might be a little confused due to the existence of multiple versions of the film. Let's clear that up a bit.
Fast-forward ten years to 1992, when the world received the Director's Cut of the film. At the time, Blade Runner had picked up in popularity through video rental and the international market, and the studio was prompted to release an official Director's Cut after an unofficial version was being made available from a workprint. The Director's Cut was the first introduction to Blade Runner for a whole new generation, including myself.
Fast-forward fifteen more years to 2007, when Ridley Scott brought Blade Runner fans his definitive version of the movie, the Final Cut. Blade Runner: The Final Cut was digitally remastered and reworked by Ridley Scott with complete artistic freedom, whereas the Director's Cut was created by the studio without his involvement. This version fixes some technical problems that persisted from the theatrical version to the Director's Cut, and adds back a little story to better fulfill Ridley Scott's original vision for the film.
If you're looking to get into Blade Runner before Blade Runner 2049 hits theatres in October, the Final Cut is probably the best place to start. It offers the most cohesive viewing experience, complete with restored visuals. Believe me when I tell you there is no movie quite like Blade Runner. Watching Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) track down and "retire" replicants on the streets of a dystopian Los Angeles awash in neon signs never ceases to fill me with awe. Rutger Hauer's performance as the main antagonist, Roy Batty, is both chilling and thought-provoking, making viewers question what being human truly means.
Blade Runner is now widely considered to be not just the first example of Cyberpunk in film, but also the best. And for good reason, as every frame is a work of art, and the philosophical questions it first posed 35 years ago are still being debated today. Us die-hard fans can only pray the upcoming sequel doesn't completely obliterate the mystery and pathos of the replicant condition.
Fast-forward ten years to 1992, when the world received the Director's Cut of the film. At the time, Blade Runner had picked up in popularity through video rental and the international market, and the studio was prompted to release an official Director's Cut after an unofficial version was being made available from a workprint. The Director's Cut was the first introduction to Blade Runner for a whole new generation, including myself.
Fast-forward fifteen more years to 2007, when Ridley Scott brought Blade Runner fans his definitive version of the movie, the Final Cut. Blade Runner: The Final Cut was digitally remastered and reworked by Ridley Scott with complete artistic freedom, whereas the Director's Cut was created by the studio without his involvement. This version fixes some technical problems that persisted from the theatrical version to the Director's Cut, and adds back a little story to better fulfill Ridley Scott's original vision for the film.
If you're looking to get into Blade Runner before Blade Runner 2049 hits theatres in October, the Final Cut is probably the best place to start. It offers the most cohesive viewing experience, complete with restored visuals. Believe me when I tell you there is no movie quite like Blade Runner. Watching Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) track down and "retire" replicants on the streets of a dystopian Los Angeles awash in neon signs never ceases to fill me with awe. Rutger Hauer's performance as the main antagonist, Roy Batty, is both chilling and thought-provoking, making viewers question what being human truly means.
Blade Runner is now widely considered to be not just the first example of Cyberpunk in film, but also the best. And for good reason, as every frame is a work of art, and the philosophical questions it first posed 35 years ago are still being debated today. Us die-hard fans can only pray the upcoming sequel doesn't completely obliterate the mystery and pathos of the replicant condition.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Tomorrowland (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
A CGI disaster
Disney has an intriguing track record when it comes to movies. The multi-billion dollar company has produced some incredible films and some absolute stinkers, with its live-action department bearing the brunt of this misfortune.
Here, The Incredibles director Brad Bird is hoping to add another great film to his CV with Tomorrowland: A World Beyond, but does this George Clooney fantasy adventure tick all the right boxes?
Tomorrowland is based on Disney’s adventure ride of the same name and like The Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, requires a completely original story to ensure it translates well onto the big screen.
George Clooney, Hugh Laurie and Britt Robertson star in a film that is visually stunning but horrifically uneven with a story that doesn’t make much sense. Its vague environmental message is one of the only things to take away from it.
Clooney stars as Frank Walker, a disgruntled inventor who transports Robertson’s Casey Newton to a place in time and space known only as Tomorrowland. Once there, they must change the past in order to secure their future.
Bird’s direction is as usual, supremely confident with stunning CGI landscapes of the metropolis being beautifully juxtaposed with the Earth we know and love. There are scenes here that look like something from an art installation.
Clooney is as dynamic as ever in between all the special effects and Robertson channels Jennifer Lawrence in her role as the plucky teenager, but Tomorrowland showcases Hugh Laurie the best. His David Nix is an intriguing character who is sorely underused with the CGI being the main focus here.
Unfortunately, as countless blockbusters have proved time and time again, brilliant special effects don’t equal a brilliant film and Tomorrowland falls head first into that trap. Yes, the other dimension is on the whole, breath-taking but there’s such a lack of detail anywhere else that it feels decidedly hollow.
This isn’t to say that we have a film like Transformers: Age of Extinction on our hands but it doesn’t reach the heights of Saving Mr Banks or even the Narnia films.
Being stuck in the middle isn’t the best place to be for a movie with a rumoured production cost of $200m and it’s this lack of identity that may hold Tomorrowland back when it comes to box-office performance.
There’s also some debate over the target audience. With a 12A rating, you’d expect a similar tone to The Hunger Games or even The Amazing Spider-Man 2, but what the audience gets is a PG movie with a couple of scenes of violence, pushing it over into the coveted ‘teen market’.
Overall, Tomorrowland is a fun if entirely forgetful fantasy adventure brimming with CGI and unfortunately not much else. Hugh Laurie is an eccentric and painfully underused presence and that pretty much sums up the entire production.
Everything feels a little underdone, like there was something else under the surface waiting to break free that just didn’t come to fruition.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/05/24/a-cgi-disaster-tomorrowland-review/
Here, The Incredibles director Brad Bird is hoping to add another great film to his CV with Tomorrowland: A World Beyond, but does this George Clooney fantasy adventure tick all the right boxes?
Tomorrowland is based on Disney’s adventure ride of the same name and like The Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, requires a completely original story to ensure it translates well onto the big screen.
George Clooney, Hugh Laurie and Britt Robertson star in a film that is visually stunning but horrifically uneven with a story that doesn’t make much sense. Its vague environmental message is one of the only things to take away from it.
Clooney stars as Frank Walker, a disgruntled inventor who transports Robertson’s Casey Newton to a place in time and space known only as Tomorrowland. Once there, they must change the past in order to secure their future.
Bird’s direction is as usual, supremely confident with stunning CGI landscapes of the metropolis being beautifully juxtaposed with the Earth we know and love. There are scenes here that look like something from an art installation.
Clooney is as dynamic as ever in between all the special effects and Robertson channels Jennifer Lawrence in her role as the plucky teenager, but Tomorrowland showcases Hugh Laurie the best. His David Nix is an intriguing character who is sorely underused with the CGI being the main focus here.
Unfortunately, as countless blockbusters have proved time and time again, brilliant special effects don’t equal a brilliant film and Tomorrowland falls head first into that trap. Yes, the other dimension is on the whole, breath-taking but there’s such a lack of detail anywhere else that it feels decidedly hollow.
This isn’t to say that we have a film like Transformers: Age of Extinction on our hands but it doesn’t reach the heights of Saving Mr Banks or even the Narnia films.
Being stuck in the middle isn’t the best place to be for a movie with a rumoured production cost of $200m and it’s this lack of identity that may hold Tomorrowland back when it comes to box-office performance.
There’s also some debate over the target audience. With a 12A rating, you’d expect a similar tone to The Hunger Games or even The Amazing Spider-Man 2, but what the audience gets is a PG movie with a couple of scenes of violence, pushing it over into the coveted ‘teen market’.
Overall, Tomorrowland is a fun if entirely forgetful fantasy adventure brimming with CGI and unfortunately not much else. Hugh Laurie is an eccentric and painfully underused presence and that pretty much sums up the entire production.
Everything feels a little underdone, like there was something else under the surface waiting to break free that just didn’t come to fruition.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/05/24/a-cgi-disaster-tomorrowland-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Life for Peter Parker, (Andrew Garfield), has become interesting to say the least. He is juggling the delicate and complex balance of being Spider-man as well as a high school senior and boyfriend to Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone).
His enthusiasm for his wall crawling alter ego is evident from the start as he still is as fast with a quip as he is with his webs and fists when taking down the bad guys of New York.
A chance encounter with an ultra nerdy yet brilliant Oscorp employee named Max (Jaime Foxx), puts a series of events into motion that will put the city and Spider-man on a collision with a severe danger.
When a freak accident transforms Max into a being capable of becoming and discharging pure electricity, the passive aggressive Max has an outlet for his pent up anger and hero worship and sets to make all those who ignored him pay.
At the same time, internal politics have left Oscorp in the hands of young Harry who learns he has limited time to solidify his position and legacy.
All of this would be enough for anyone to deal with but Peter is conflicted by his love for Gwen and his promise to her late father to stay away from her for her own safety.
Peter also has to content with his Aunt May (Sally Field) and unlocking the mystery of his parents who left him with his Aunt and Uncle years earlier never to return.
If this sounds a bit heady for a comic book based movie then you will not be surprised with the first ¾ of the film. It does contain some great 3D moments of Spider-man slinging his way around the city and some good moments of action but mostly the audience gets character introductions and plot expositions.
When it does get to the action, it does so in a very sleek and stylish way but one that is so obviously CGI created that it plays more like a video game.
For me the liberties taking with the characters and the history of the series were a bit much at first as what they came up with for Electro is not even close to the way he is portrayed in the comics.
Thankfully the final act of the film delivers and sets up future films in grand style even though the trailers tease content that is barely in the film and would have made for a great addition to the film.
Garfield and Stone have great chemistry with one another, and Foxx does his best despite in my opinion being very miscast for the role.
Director Marc Webb is clearly a fan of the source material and I am eager to see what he comes up with for future installments.
As it stands, “The Amazing Spider-man 2”, is an enjoyable summer film but not as good as the film that preceded it and could have been so much more.
http://sknr.net/2014/05/02/amazing-spider-man-2/
His enthusiasm for his wall crawling alter ego is evident from the start as he still is as fast with a quip as he is with his webs and fists when taking down the bad guys of New York.
A chance encounter with an ultra nerdy yet brilliant Oscorp employee named Max (Jaime Foxx), puts a series of events into motion that will put the city and Spider-man on a collision with a severe danger.
When a freak accident transforms Max into a being capable of becoming and discharging pure electricity, the passive aggressive Max has an outlet for his pent up anger and hero worship and sets to make all those who ignored him pay.
At the same time, internal politics have left Oscorp in the hands of young Harry who learns he has limited time to solidify his position and legacy.
All of this would be enough for anyone to deal with but Peter is conflicted by his love for Gwen and his promise to her late father to stay away from her for her own safety.
Peter also has to content with his Aunt May (Sally Field) and unlocking the mystery of his parents who left him with his Aunt and Uncle years earlier never to return.
If this sounds a bit heady for a comic book based movie then you will not be surprised with the first ¾ of the film. It does contain some great 3D moments of Spider-man slinging his way around the city and some good moments of action but mostly the audience gets character introductions and plot expositions.
When it does get to the action, it does so in a very sleek and stylish way but one that is so obviously CGI created that it plays more like a video game.
For me the liberties taking with the characters and the history of the series were a bit much at first as what they came up with for Electro is not even close to the way he is portrayed in the comics.
Thankfully the final act of the film delivers and sets up future films in grand style even though the trailers tease content that is barely in the film and would have made for a great addition to the film.
Garfield and Stone have great chemistry with one another, and Foxx does his best despite in my opinion being very miscast for the role.
Director Marc Webb is clearly a fan of the source material and I am eager to see what he comes up with for future installments.
As it stands, “The Amazing Spider-man 2”, is an enjoyable summer film but not as good as the film that preceded it and could have been so much more.
http://sknr.net/2014/05/02/amazing-spider-man-2/
Darren (1599 KP) rated 6 Days (2017) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019 (Updated Jun 20, 2019)
Contains spoilers, click to show
Story: 6 Days starts on the 30th April 1980 when Iranian terrorists storm the Iranian Embassy in Princes Gate taking hostages and demanding the release of 91 prisoners back in Iran. We follow the negotiator Max Vernon (Strong), reporter Kate Adie (Cornish) and the specialist SAS unit with rookie Rusty Firmin (Bell) planning their ideas of for entering the embassy.
England faces the idea of negotiating with terrorists or being strong and taking them down from the within showing the strength to deal with terrorist situations. As the tensions rise, Max tries to find a peaceful solution to everything while Rusty and his team are preparing for any chance of taking the embassy by force.
Thoughts on 6 Days
Characters – Rusty Firmin is the lead on a SAS team that are called to try and solve the hostage situation, they have only ever done training never being able to get their hands-on experience before. Rusty is desperate to show they are ready to protect their country. Max Vernon is the negotiator that keeps the terrorists calm, trying to make their demands happen, he stays calm through the whole situation even when the pressure to make something happen is getting to him. Kate Adie gives updates from outside for the watching television public to see how everything unfolds, in all honesty, we don’t need to be following this character.
Performances – When you look at the performances you can’t fault them because they are give good performances, Mark Strong shines like he always does, Jamie Bell is good too, the limited scenes Abbie Cornish is in she does well to. The problem is the characters are not the most interesting.
Story – The story is based on the real Iranian terrorist hostage situation in 1980 which last the 6 Days. It shows how England didn’t want a copy of what happened in Munich, didn’t want to give into terrorism and wanted to remain strong in the eyes of the world. It also shows how while being trained to deal with the situation, the SAS had never had to tackle things in reality. This should be an interesting watch but in the end, we don’t focus on enough of the negotiation process or the tactical side leaving us feeling like we haven’t learnt enough by the end.
Action/History – The get tactical action, the most part is training ideas before one main shot, but it doesn’t feel like it was shot the best way. We learn moments from the historical events, but most comes from the reading over the storytelling.
Settings – The film is set instantly around the Embassy, which puts us into the action from the start which is all we want to see.
Scene of the Movie – The practise sieges
That Moment That Annoyed Me – I feel we should have followed one side more instead of trying to cover three angles.
Final Thoughts – This is a solid enough history lesson, we learn what we need to, but not enough from the action unfolding before us.
Overall: Disappointing historical drama.
https://moviesreview101.com/2017/11/26/6-days-2017/
England faces the idea of negotiating with terrorists or being strong and taking them down from the within showing the strength to deal with terrorist situations. As the tensions rise, Max tries to find a peaceful solution to everything while Rusty and his team are preparing for any chance of taking the embassy by force.
Thoughts on 6 Days
Characters – Rusty Firmin is the lead on a SAS team that are called to try and solve the hostage situation, they have only ever done training never being able to get their hands-on experience before. Rusty is desperate to show they are ready to protect their country. Max Vernon is the negotiator that keeps the terrorists calm, trying to make their demands happen, he stays calm through the whole situation even when the pressure to make something happen is getting to him. Kate Adie gives updates from outside for the watching television public to see how everything unfolds, in all honesty, we don’t need to be following this character.
Performances – When you look at the performances you can’t fault them because they are give good performances, Mark Strong shines like he always does, Jamie Bell is good too, the limited scenes Abbie Cornish is in she does well to. The problem is the characters are not the most interesting.
Story – The story is based on the real Iranian terrorist hostage situation in 1980 which last the 6 Days. It shows how England didn’t want a copy of what happened in Munich, didn’t want to give into terrorism and wanted to remain strong in the eyes of the world. It also shows how while being trained to deal with the situation, the SAS had never had to tackle things in reality. This should be an interesting watch but in the end, we don’t focus on enough of the negotiation process or the tactical side leaving us feeling like we haven’t learnt enough by the end.
Action/History – The get tactical action, the most part is training ideas before one main shot, but it doesn’t feel like it was shot the best way. We learn moments from the historical events, but most comes from the reading over the storytelling.
Settings – The film is set instantly around the Embassy, which puts us into the action from the start which is all we want to see.
Scene of the Movie – The practise sieges
That Moment That Annoyed Me – I feel we should have followed one side more instead of trying to cover three angles.
Final Thoughts – This is a solid enough history lesson, we learn what we need to, but not enough from the action unfolding before us.
Overall: Disappointing historical drama.
https://moviesreview101.com/2017/11/26/6-days-2017/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Kindergarten Teacher (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
The Kindergarten Teacher was an experience, a proper "oh no, don't do that" awkward experience. Evidently it is a remake of the 2014 film Haganenet/The Kindergarten Teacher, written and directed by Nadav Lapid. Recently I've been watching the original versions to see the comparison between the two but I honestly don't think I can do it with this.
The story follows Lisa as she tries to nurture her own talent and that of her two children. But she's a disconnected mother and she doesn't seem to realise that they're doing okay on their own and it's just her life that hasn't lived up to expectations.
I'm intrigued to know the story behind how this originally came into being. It seems like a very specific subject, although I can't find anything about it being a true story in a brief search on the interweb.
Gyllenhaal has a tough role, it goes against every instinct you have as a decent human being. Lisa is an intriguing character, while she has her own interests at heart and the desire to make herself a success she's also desperate to give Jimmy the success he deserves too. It's quite surprising how she willingly unmasks herself in his favour at one point, but I think that's also the point where she realises she's crossed so far over the line that she's no hope of recovering from it. There's a desperation around her, she needs to be something more than she is and that urgency makes her forget what's appropriate and right.
This is scary in a way I can't really identify, possibly because it singles out a predator I'd never considered before? While the relationship is never particularly physically inappropriate her treatment of Jimmy does swing wildly between looking after him as a motherly figure to calling him like they're in a relationship.
I can't say that I enjoyed the film, I also didn't particularly hate it. The topic was so distracting that I couldn't really focus on all of the aspects of the film while I watched it. I think it was more that I was reacting so much to the story that there was actually no place for enjoyment. It really annoyed me that not a single person actioned any of their suspicions, there were at least two opportunities for intervention and yet, nothing.
The ending was a redemption of sorts and the way it was handled was quite unexpected, I'm not sure that it really made up for anything that came before it but it was well received.
Sadly I can't think of anything more constructive to say about this, it genuinely makes me scrunch up my face while I think about it.
What you should do
There's nothing particularly outstanding in The Kindergarten Teacher for me to recommend it, I don't even think I would watch it when it comes to streaming services.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I don't really want anything from this movie, I would however like 2 hours of pleasant feelings to put in place of everything I felt while watching this.
The story follows Lisa as she tries to nurture her own talent and that of her two children. But she's a disconnected mother and she doesn't seem to realise that they're doing okay on their own and it's just her life that hasn't lived up to expectations.
I'm intrigued to know the story behind how this originally came into being. It seems like a very specific subject, although I can't find anything about it being a true story in a brief search on the interweb.
Gyllenhaal has a tough role, it goes against every instinct you have as a decent human being. Lisa is an intriguing character, while she has her own interests at heart and the desire to make herself a success she's also desperate to give Jimmy the success he deserves too. It's quite surprising how she willingly unmasks herself in his favour at one point, but I think that's also the point where she realises she's crossed so far over the line that she's no hope of recovering from it. There's a desperation around her, she needs to be something more than she is and that urgency makes her forget what's appropriate and right.
This is scary in a way I can't really identify, possibly because it singles out a predator I'd never considered before? While the relationship is never particularly physically inappropriate her treatment of Jimmy does swing wildly between looking after him as a motherly figure to calling him like they're in a relationship.
I can't say that I enjoyed the film, I also didn't particularly hate it. The topic was so distracting that I couldn't really focus on all of the aspects of the film while I watched it. I think it was more that I was reacting so much to the story that there was actually no place for enjoyment. It really annoyed me that not a single person actioned any of their suspicions, there were at least two opportunities for intervention and yet, nothing.
The ending was a redemption of sorts and the way it was handled was quite unexpected, I'm not sure that it really made up for anything that came before it but it was well received.
Sadly I can't think of anything more constructive to say about this, it genuinely makes me scrunch up my face while I think about it.
What you should do
There's nothing particularly outstanding in The Kindergarten Teacher for me to recommend it, I don't even think I would watch it when it comes to streaming services.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I don't really want anything from this movie, I would however like 2 hours of pleasant feelings to put in place of everything I felt while watching this.
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated The Long Utopia in Books
Nov 20, 2019
The Long Earth series of books presented an intriguing idea, that of being able to 'step' into parallel Earths, each an untouched wilderness and each one slightly different until they became very different planets. How would this affect people on a personal level and how would it affect the social and political stability of the original 'Datum Earth'?
The second book, The Long War explored the political theme further with the superpowers attempting to control the equivalent populations on the other Earths - and mostly meeting resistance to any governance at all. It also introduced the concept of the Next, a super intelligent sub-species of humanity.
The third book, The Long Mars had further incredible iterations of Earth on display and also did the same thing for Mars on a quest to discover a material to use to make a space elevator. The Next also started to organise and to separate themselves from the rest of humanity.
Each of these took the original concept and gave us more interesting worlds and lifeforms. Although the law of diminishing returns was starting to bite - Earth fatigue if you like - the main interest was in seeing what new ideas the authors could wrestle for each new Earth or Mars.
That is where this book fails. It is almost exclusively interested in only one copy of Earth, which comes under direct threat. All the usual suspects - Joshua, Sally, Lobsang and the Next must join forces to prevent a catastrophe threatening the whole Long Earth. There is also a sub-plot involving Joshua's antecedents which although interesting in itself is essentially a Long Earth short story of no relevance to the rest of the plot.
Whereas the previous books had a sense of wonder at each world, this loses that completely. It is in fact a completely standard science fiction story and probably would have been better told as a stand alone story rather than being shoe-horned into the Long Earth concept, which doesn't actually add anything interesting to it. It reads very much like Baxter wanted to write a story about a Dyson motor and as he was contracted to write a Long Earth novel, that's what was used. Unfortunately even this story is not well told with stilted and flaccid dialogue, zero character development and no dramatic tension at all. It was a real struggle to read in places, there is no zip or flow to the story or writing.
Various bits of the plot don't make a great deal of sense and the ending is very lame indeed with the chain of Long Earth worlds being essentially fixed by just thinking about it. The Next decide that Stan Berg, a newly discovered one of their kind, is the only one to 'fix' this despite basically no contact. They are supposed to be super intelligent and think many moves ahead but this just struck me as absurd.
Overall, I would only suggest that Long Earth completists read this. Those who enjoy the Long Earth for its diversity and novel concepts would be better off leaving this one on the shelf.
The second book, The Long War explored the political theme further with the superpowers attempting to control the equivalent populations on the other Earths - and mostly meeting resistance to any governance at all. It also introduced the concept of the Next, a super intelligent sub-species of humanity.
The third book, The Long Mars had further incredible iterations of Earth on display and also did the same thing for Mars on a quest to discover a material to use to make a space elevator. The Next also started to organise and to separate themselves from the rest of humanity.
Each of these took the original concept and gave us more interesting worlds and lifeforms. Although the law of diminishing returns was starting to bite - Earth fatigue if you like - the main interest was in seeing what new ideas the authors could wrestle for each new Earth or Mars.
That is where this book fails. It is almost exclusively interested in only one copy of Earth, which comes under direct threat. All the usual suspects - Joshua, Sally, Lobsang and the Next must join forces to prevent a catastrophe threatening the whole Long Earth. There is also a sub-plot involving Joshua's antecedents which although interesting in itself is essentially a Long Earth short story of no relevance to the rest of the plot.
Whereas the previous books had a sense of wonder at each world, this loses that completely. It is in fact a completely standard science fiction story and probably would have been better told as a stand alone story rather than being shoe-horned into the Long Earth concept, which doesn't actually add anything interesting to it. It reads very much like Baxter wanted to write a story about a Dyson motor and as he was contracted to write a Long Earth novel, that's what was used. Unfortunately even this story is not well told with stilted and flaccid dialogue, zero character development and no dramatic tension at all. It was a real struggle to read in places, there is no zip or flow to the story or writing.
Various bits of the plot don't make a great deal of sense and the ending is very lame indeed with the chain of Long Earth worlds being essentially fixed by just thinking about it. The Next decide that Stan Berg, a newly discovered one of their kind, is the only one to 'fix' this despite basically no contact. They are supposed to be super intelligent and think many moves ahead but this just struck me as absurd.
Overall, I would only suggest that Long Earth completists read this. Those who enjoy the Long Earth for its diversity and novel concepts would be better off leaving this one on the shelf.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Gates of Thread and Stone (Gates of Thread and Stone #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Publisher in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
Much as I actually read the synopsis once when I first saw it months ago on Goodreads and then again before I clicked "Read Now" on Netgalley, I ended up forgetting the synopsis <i>entirely</i> by the time I started.
Except for one word: Labyrinth. Needless to say, I actually thought for awhile that <i>Gates of Thread and Stone</i> would be about a labyrinth. <i>The</i> Labyrinth of the Greek myths, per say, and when I actually read <i>Gates of Thread of Stone</i>, I checked the synopsis again to set myself on the right track (because when there's no one being sent as sacrifice, you know there's something wrong).
<i>Gates of Thread and Stone</i> is really about a girl named Kai <i>living</i> with her "brother," Reev, in a place called the Labyrinth, named so by its maze-like structure, and where the lowest of the lowest in Ninurta live out their daily lives. But one day, Reev disappears just like many others and Kai is determined to find her brother.
There's something about <i>Gates of Thread and Stone</i> that I really like. It's definitely not the world, even though I highly enjoyed Lee's world-building each section (East Quarter, White Court, Void, Outlands, etc.) in Ninurta were set apart from one another and most even had their own nicknames (East Quarter = Labyrinth, North Quarter = Purgatory). It's most certainly not the amount of possible f-bombs in here as well, or what I'll assume as f-bombs, because "drek" by itself is certainly not sounding like crap or hell.
The characters were tolerable Kai is a determined and persistent character who has an admirable strength and may sometimes be a little feisty. Irra is perhaps one of my favorite characters by far, being a dramatic yet eccentric advisor in assisting Kai and Avan finding Reev. In fact... he's a bit of an oddity compared to the other Infinites, who seem to be similar to gods and goddesses based on their description.
The plot was a little predictable and I was just waiting for a couple of parts to play out (I really should stop being Sherlock Holmes and just enjoy reading the book, but I can't help myself). While the end is similar to the end of <i>Senshi</i> and the beginning of <i>Shinobi</i> and doesn't seem to have a bigger plot that spans over to the sequel or more books.
Now that I actually took the time to write all that down, maybe it's the world-building that I liked the most. With the ending of <i>Gates of Thread and Stone</i> seeming to be a solid ending, I may read the sequel just to for the pure fun of seeing what Ninurta will be like.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-gates-of-thread-and-stone-by-lori-m-lee/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Much as I actually read the synopsis once when I first saw it months ago on Goodreads and then again before I clicked "Read Now" on Netgalley, I ended up forgetting the synopsis <i>entirely</i> by the time I started.
Except for one word: Labyrinth. Needless to say, I actually thought for awhile that <i>Gates of Thread and Stone</i> would be about a labyrinth. <i>The</i> Labyrinth of the Greek myths, per say, and when I actually read <i>Gates of Thread of Stone</i>, I checked the synopsis again to set myself on the right track (because when there's no one being sent as sacrifice, you know there's something wrong).
<i>Gates of Thread and Stone</i> is really about a girl named Kai <i>living</i> with her "brother," Reev, in a place called the Labyrinth, named so by its maze-like structure, and where the lowest of the lowest in Ninurta live out their daily lives. But one day, Reev disappears just like many others and Kai is determined to find her brother.
There's something about <i>Gates of Thread and Stone</i> that I really like. It's definitely not the world, even though I highly enjoyed Lee's world-building each section (East Quarter, White Court, Void, Outlands, etc.) in Ninurta were set apart from one another and most even had their own nicknames (East Quarter = Labyrinth, North Quarter = Purgatory). It's most certainly not the amount of possible f-bombs in here as well, or what I'll assume as f-bombs, because "drek" by itself is certainly not sounding like crap or hell.
The characters were tolerable Kai is a determined and persistent character who has an admirable strength and may sometimes be a little feisty. Irra is perhaps one of my favorite characters by far, being a dramatic yet eccentric advisor in assisting Kai and Avan finding Reev. In fact... he's a bit of an oddity compared to the other Infinites, who seem to be similar to gods and goddesses based on their description.
The plot was a little predictable and I was just waiting for a couple of parts to play out (I really should stop being Sherlock Holmes and just enjoy reading the book, but I can't help myself). While the end is similar to the end of <i>Senshi</i> and the beginning of <i>Shinobi</i> and doesn't seem to have a bigger plot that spans over to the sequel or more books.
Now that I actually took the time to write all that down, maybe it's the world-building that I liked the most. With the ending of <i>Gates of Thread and Stone</i> seeming to be a solid ending, I may read the sequel just to for the pure fun of seeing what Ninurta will be like.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-gates-of-thread-and-stone-by-lori-m-lee/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
JT (287 KP) rated Session 9 (2001) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Looking back I’ve written a number of horror film reviews which, probably highlights what my favourite genre is? I’ve not been into torture porn or serious amounts of gore. I don’t mind it in small doses, but I prefer films that get under your skin – case in point, Session 9.
In order to satisfy the millennials the majority of horror films today get their thrills from cheap jump scares. But real terror comes from the things that we can relate to. Things that go ‘bump‘ in the night or the sense that we are being watched. This for me, is real terror. Directed by Brad Anderson, Session 9 embodies all of that to perfection.
Despite being made in 2001 and with a low return at the box office, it has been able to creep out audiences years later.
An asbestos cleaning crew are set the task of clearing the abandoned Danvers State Hospital, a job that needs to be done within a week. Company owner Gordon (Peter Mullan) has put a lot of pressure on his team, consisting of Mike (Stephen Gevedon), Phil (David Caruso), Hank (Josh Lucas), and Jeff (Brendan Sexton III), to meet the deadline and collect a bonus. It’s pressure that starts to spill over right from the off.
The hospital is creepy as hell and even in the daylight the crew are plunged into darkness, which doesn’t sit well with Jeff who has a serious case of nyctophobia. They also have to deal with in-fighting amongst the group. On top of the tight deadline Gordon is struggling with the stress of raising a newborn child and arguments with his wife have not helped matters and slowly he becomes dissociated from the group. Meanwhile Mike stumbles across some tapes (nine of them) which are session interviews with a former patient called Mary Hobbes who has multiple personalities, that over the course of each session start to come out.
Phil (David Caruso) & Jeff (Brendan Sexton III) investigate the depths of the hospital
Like Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining – the location starts to take hold of each of the men, sending them spiraling into a world of personal madness. A number of subplots become interconnected the longer the film goes on and the pacing, while slow for some horror fans, is brilliantly orchestrated for those with patience. Despite being made in 2001 and with a low return at the box office, it has been able to creep out audiences years later.
What makes the film even more terrifying is the setting. The film was shot in the actual Danvers State Hospital so it needed little doing to it in terms of effects. The hospital was said to be the birth place of the prefrontal lobotomy (something which is referenced in the film), and part of me thinks that the fear on the actors faces as they walk the halls was in fact genuine terror. If that is the case then it only adds to the horror.
Session 9 will stay with you long after the credits. It doesn’t rely on heavy gore or CGI and builds tension with what you think you can see and at times – what you can’t.
In order to satisfy the millennials the majority of horror films today get their thrills from cheap jump scares. But real terror comes from the things that we can relate to. Things that go ‘bump‘ in the night or the sense that we are being watched. This for me, is real terror. Directed by Brad Anderson, Session 9 embodies all of that to perfection.
Despite being made in 2001 and with a low return at the box office, it has been able to creep out audiences years later.
An asbestos cleaning crew are set the task of clearing the abandoned Danvers State Hospital, a job that needs to be done within a week. Company owner Gordon (Peter Mullan) has put a lot of pressure on his team, consisting of Mike (Stephen Gevedon), Phil (David Caruso), Hank (Josh Lucas), and Jeff (Brendan Sexton III), to meet the deadline and collect a bonus. It’s pressure that starts to spill over right from the off.
The hospital is creepy as hell and even in the daylight the crew are plunged into darkness, which doesn’t sit well with Jeff who has a serious case of nyctophobia. They also have to deal with in-fighting amongst the group. On top of the tight deadline Gordon is struggling with the stress of raising a newborn child and arguments with his wife have not helped matters and slowly he becomes dissociated from the group. Meanwhile Mike stumbles across some tapes (nine of them) which are session interviews with a former patient called Mary Hobbes who has multiple personalities, that over the course of each session start to come out.
Phil (David Caruso) & Jeff (Brendan Sexton III) investigate the depths of the hospital
Like Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining – the location starts to take hold of each of the men, sending them spiraling into a world of personal madness. A number of subplots become interconnected the longer the film goes on and the pacing, while slow for some horror fans, is brilliantly orchestrated for those with patience. Despite being made in 2001 and with a low return at the box office, it has been able to creep out audiences years later.
What makes the film even more terrifying is the setting. The film was shot in the actual Danvers State Hospital so it needed little doing to it in terms of effects. The hospital was said to be the birth place of the prefrontal lobotomy (something which is referenced in the film), and part of me thinks that the fear on the actors faces as they walk the halls was in fact genuine terror. If that is the case then it only adds to the horror.
Session 9 will stay with you long after the credits. It doesn’t rely on heavy gore or CGI and builds tension with what you think you can see and at times – what you can’t.
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated X-Men Red, Vol. 1: The Hate Machine in Books
Nov 30, 2020
While I was starting to tire of Tom Taylor's run on ALL-NEW WOLVERINE (I didn't hate it or anything, I just was starting to tire of some of the humor incorporated in the series. Still, if I had to decide between him and Tamiko, who took over after him on the X-23 series, I would take Taylor for another run, no question!), I wasn't sure if I wanted to read any X-Men stories leading into "Dawn of X". I also had lost a lot of interest in the X-franchise, as the stories were just awful (yes, Bendis and Hopeless, I am talking about you both in this sentence!)! However, I have gotten back on board with the wonderful re-invigoration of the mutants, making them cool again! Thus, when the recent Comixology sale came through, I took advantage of snagging both Volumes!
Dear God, this was some solid writing here! Edgy as heck, VERY socially relevent ("mutant hate" subbing in for "immigrant hate"!), and more representative of the team as a whole! I seriously wanted to sit up in bed and cheer last night, as I found myself coming to the end of this first volume!
I know there has been some off-handed remarks towards this series, citing its content as being too "on the nose" as far as the social relevance of what was being portrayed. There has also been that <b>waaaay</b> TOO OVER-USED word "SJW" thrown out, when forward-thinking makes some folks have to <i>think</i> a bit <u>too</u> forwardly! Yeah, well, maybe that's the only way to get the message across, as trying to do it subtle-like, leads to the overly message often getting missed or brushed off!
I applaud Tom Taylor for his writing here. The feeling I got from reading this was it not only began to reset the X-line in a positive, and very socially relevant way, but it also helped set the stage for what would lead into Moira's "Dawn of X" temporal reboot! Not only that, but for me, anyways, it helped restore the X-Men as being heroes and doing truly heroic deeds again! Something we most definitely need in this racially-imbalanced toxicity that is the current state of our culture! Thank you, Tom!!
My only quibble with the series, and it is more of a superficial quibble at best, was Kurt (Nightcrawler) sporting facial hair. I dunno. With all the negative connotation that hipsters have been generating with the whole <i>"I just rolled out from under a dumpster!"</i> look for those that choose to adopt the regrettable "neck-beard" look! Yeah, can't think of Kurt as anything other than clean-shaven! But, it did not take away from the story in any way! Just like I ignore hipsters, whether sporting a "neck-beard" or just in general, I was able to forget about it! lol
Again, I loved this book! Looking forward to starting Volume 2 tonight! Still not sure if this is for you? Ask yourself what makes a hero a Hero, and chances are, you will find yourself enjoying what is a solid read!
Dear God, this was some solid writing here! Edgy as heck, VERY socially relevent ("mutant hate" subbing in for "immigrant hate"!), and more representative of the team as a whole! I seriously wanted to sit up in bed and cheer last night, as I found myself coming to the end of this first volume!
I know there has been some off-handed remarks towards this series, citing its content as being too "on the nose" as far as the social relevance of what was being portrayed. There has also been that <b>waaaay</b> TOO OVER-USED word "SJW" thrown out, when forward-thinking makes some folks have to <i>think</i> a bit <u>too</u> forwardly! Yeah, well, maybe that's the only way to get the message across, as trying to do it subtle-like, leads to the overly message often getting missed or brushed off!
I applaud Tom Taylor for his writing here. The feeling I got from reading this was it not only began to reset the X-line in a positive, and very socially relevant way, but it also helped set the stage for what would lead into Moira's "Dawn of X" temporal reboot! Not only that, but for me, anyways, it helped restore the X-Men as being heroes and doing truly heroic deeds again! Something we most definitely need in this racially-imbalanced toxicity that is the current state of our culture! Thank you, Tom!!
My only quibble with the series, and it is more of a superficial quibble at best, was Kurt (Nightcrawler) sporting facial hair. I dunno. With all the negative connotation that hipsters have been generating with the whole <i>"I just rolled out from under a dumpster!"</i> look for those that choose to adopt the regrettable "neck-beard" look! Yeah, can't think of Kurt as anything other than clean-shaven! But, it did not take away from the story in any way! Just like I ignore hipsters, whether sporting a "neck-beard" or just in general, I was able to forget about it! lol
Again, I loved this book! Looking forward to starting Volume 2 tonight! Still not sure if this is for you? Ask yourself what makes a hero a Hero, and chances are, you will find yourself enjoying what is a solid read!