Tag: review

Categories
TV

13 Reasons Why, Netflix, 2017

13-reasons-crop

13 Reasons why is the currently most talked about series on TV.  It is a teenage morality tale about a 17 year old girl who has committed suicide in the weeks before the series begins. She has left behind a suicide note, in the form of 13, C60  audio cassettes, each one naming a different person as having a hand in causing her to take her own life. Each cassette states what this person did to affect her and she has arranged that the whole series of tapes is delivered to each of the thirteen people in turn.

So far, so dark – a horrible premise of a teenager’s suicide and the ultimate naming, blaming and shaming fantasy. This could have been so awful that I almost gave up watching after each of the first three episodes.

However, Hannah, the girl who killed herself, is a likeable, witty, attractive personality and we want to find out what drove her to despair. She mostly avoids playing the blame game and the series is really a universal tale about the complications of dealing with serious and difficult problems, often for the first time, as a teenager negotiates the change from child to adult.

The characters are well written and well rounded. The story is told half in the current timeline and half in flashback, this is clever, as we can see the change that Hannah’s death has brought to each person. There are stereotypes, in that they fit into their groups at the school but each individual is given a three dimensional personality and the only caricature is the one who does not get to listen to the tapes.

The acting is great, everyone talks about how good the two leads are – they are excellent.  Christian Navarro is also very good as Tony, who serves as a kind of nuanced narrator. Kate Walsh is brilliant, playing two parts really, as Hannah’s mother, before and after the suicide.

I liked the fact that the show concentrates just as much on the devastation left behind as the reasons for the death. It is a thin line between negating the reasons for Hannah’s suicide and justifying them, the show manages to realistically state the reasons for her actions but never says that she was right to do so. There is talk of a second series because of the success of season one, and possibly because of the unresolved nature of some of the issues. I believe that the show had to leave these issues open because to close them would have implied that her killing herself would have achieved a closure that might not  have been attained had she lived.

I enjoyed this series very much but I hope they choose not to film a season two, either to resolve these issues or to follow the lives of some of the other characters, 13 Reasons Why, is all about Hannah, let’s keep it about her.

Categories
Film Review

Get Out (dir. Jordan Peele) 2017

get-out-daniel-kaluuya-allison-williams-slice-600x200

Get Out has a number of “jump back in your seat” moments which is always a good thing in a horror movie. It also has humour, both laugh out loud bits, and some sly, embarrassing, observational moments. These carry you along nicely to the next scary part.

The acting is good, Bradley Whitford is excellent as a white liberal intellectual, explaining his guilt away. Catherine Keener is creepy as the psychologist mother.  Daniel Kaluuya is good at noticing the slights but not taking offence, a fine line to tread.

I really liked Jordan Peele’s manner of dealing with incidental, institutional racism in this film. It is there throughout the movie, and it isn’t ignored, but it is supposedly not the main storyline. The front story is a brainwashing, Stepford, comedy/horror thing. He shows great promise in his first film, with his light touch on an awkward subject. Interestingly, he has just become the first black debut director to have his film gross over $100 million.

There is some gore, enough to make you feel some disgust, but not enough to want to hide behind your cinema seat.

The ending is interesting too, it is always nice to have a finish that is unexpected, and this finale suited the movie much better.

I have to say that I really enjoyed this film, a great mixture of comedy, horror and social comment.

Categories
Attractions

The Design Museum, Kensington High Street, London

 

Olivetti Advert
1970s Olivetti Advertisement at the Design Museum

 

The Design Museum has a new building on Kensington High Street. The setting is lovely, right on the edge of Holland Park. The building itself is, as you would expect, beautifully designed. The interior is bright and spacious, filled with indirect light, the curves of the roof are attractive, the stairs and levels of the building are cleverly arranged to describe a pleasing combination of form and function, the atrium widening as it rises, with built in seating among the stairs on the lower levels and along the walls, further up.

I like the way, that even now, when it is open and in use, it still has the look and feel of the architect design drawings that would have been put on show at its conception. It will be very interesting to see how the building ages, I have great hopes that the clean lines of the wood, marble and glass will hold the elegance that it has now.

NHM3_122

The free exhibition on the third floor is good too, larger and more interactive than it was in the old museum. It is still packed with examples of outstanding design and has many of the pieces that were on display in its old home on the South Bank. The exhibits include the design development of many common household items, for example clocks, phones and headphones from their earliest designs to current iterations.

It will also hold paid for exhibits, currently these are Love and Fear, and Imagine Moscow. However, the permanent exhibition is worth the trip even if you choose not to visit the chargeable offering.  If you go on a fine day, Holland Park is a very pretty park to walk through too, it is well maintained and has nice ordered gardens.

The new Design Museum with regard to its building, setting and free exhibits has to be regarded as a complete success.

Display

Categories
Books

This Charming Man, Marian Keyes, 2008

s-l300

It seems to me, from reviews that I have read, that Marian Keyes is not regarded as a serious author. I suspect that this comes from her novels being easy to read. “This Charming Man” is indeed easy to read, but that is because it is well written and not because it does not approach difficult subjects.

The main subjects of this book are abusive relationships, alcoholism and corruption in politics, with brief forays into living with a cancer diagnosis and isolation of cross dressers in rural communities. Marian Keyes has a deftness of touch and a sense of humour that manages to make this book engaging while still keeping the reader aware of the difficulties of the characters lives.

This is no less literature than Dickens or Austen, she has a great deal in common with Jane Austen in that the book is a good insight into society and the social norms of the time in which it is written. This story is told from the points of view of four different women and this is a structure also favoured by Austen. They also have wit in common and both poke gentle fun at their heroines as a way of pointing out the foibles of the culture in which they live. This novel is set in Dublin, London and County Clare.

Having said that, this particular novel is a little darker than some of her other books, although it is remarkable, maybe even a bit of a stretch, that she managed to tie up the loose ends quite as well as she did.

This Charming Man won the Popular Fiction Prize at the Irish Book Awards. I think it should have been considered for other more seriously regarded literary awards also, because there is no doubt that Marian Keyes’ books are going to be regarded as representative of late 20th, early 21st century literature in hundreds of years time.

 

Categories
Theatre review

Don Juan in Soho, Wyndham’s Theatre, London, 2017

djr2

The 17th Century version of this play closed, after only one performance, because of its repulsive and offensive nature. It was not shown in an uncensored form again for almost 150 years. Marber updates the setting to 21st Century Soho, but stays remarkably faithful to the original story.

It is shocking, ribald, offensive but that is the point of the play, Don Juan is not meant to have any redeeming features.  David Tennant is very good as the debauched libertine, who is patronising, misogynistic and self serving.  Adrian Scarborough is fantastic as Stan, his forgiving manservant, who is just as taken is by his master’s guile as any of the women he seduces. Together they make a fantastic double act, funny and argumentative, Stan feels the guilt that his master doesn’t, but yet he cannot help himself from becoming involved in the collusion. Their duet to close the first act was brilliant.

The script is witty and sharp, Don Juan’s diatribe against social media and celebrity culture is funny, and made it feel current, even if it did not advance his argument.  I have to admit that I am not sure what the addition of the dancers in their underwear added to the proceedings, but the use of music is good, the occasional pieces from Mozart’s, Don Giovanni are a nice juxtaposition to the modern score.

This play is always going to a controversial choice, if it doesn’t disturb and distress people, it is not doing its job. It is a brave play for the leading actors to take on because it relies so heavily on the capability and rapport of the two lead characters and if it is not done well, it will always be a mark on their career. However, David Tennant and Adrian Scarborough are both excellent and carry it off admirably.

With the vogue in theatre now, for women to take on roles that have traditionally been played by men, this would be an interesting proposition – and it would go some way to counteracting the misogyny criticisms often levelled against it.

Until that happens, this is a very enjoyable show, an excellent night out and the perfect start to a night of revelry in nearby Soho.

Categories
Film Review

Tower Block (dir. James Nunn, Ronnie Thompson) 2012

1371439533_6

This is a no nonsense, horror/thriller movie. It is set on the top floor of a tower block that is about to be demolished. It is a British film and has an excellent British cast. It moves along exactly as you would expect, but the action is taut and interaction between characters manage to keep good tension going throughout he film.

Sheridan Smith, Russell Tovey, Ralph Brown and Jack O’Connell are all very good as the resourceful tower block inhabitants attempting to escape their situation, while quarrelling amongst themselves.  The set is excellent, the block is scuzzy, the area urban, the setting is as bleak as the position the tenants find themselves in.

The characters are flawed, but real, and there is not much pretense of politeness between them. The script is good and we grow to know, even if we don’t necessarily like, the protagonists. We want them succeed and applaud their increasingly desperate ingenuity.

This type of film generally follows a set narrative arc and the denouement is much as you would expect. There aren’t many surprises here, but it is a likeable film and very good at what it does.

Recommended.

<a href=”https://www.bloglovin.com/blog/18829065/?claim=xcqdqsv9rnx”>Follow my blog with Bloglovin</a>

 

 

Categories
Film Review

The Nice Guys (dir. Shane Black) 2016

niceguy-facebookjumbo-v3

This is a curate’s egg of a film – good in parts. It’s sets out to be a pastiche of a corny 1970s Blaxploitation movie, and it succeeds almost too well for its own good. The plot is very ’70s, a light, far fetched, political conspiracy theory.

The characters are caricatures. Ryan Gosling as Holland March is quite knowing about it and carries it off very well, we get to like him and he is actually very funny.  Russell Crowe seems to be just walking through the film saying his lines, so his character is two dimensional. Angourie Rice is great as Holland’s daughter and also has some of the best lines of the show.

This movie contains violence, sex references, nudity, bad language and drug use; all gratuitous, all characteristic of the time. Not so funny in itself but funny because in the 70s they were only recently able to put these into films, so they did, even if it was unnecessary.  The humour is broad, bordering on slapstick, but it works, mostly

The sets are perfect and costumes are right on.  I particularly enjoyed the soundtrack, apparently some of the songs were too late for the time in which it was set, but they felt right to me.

On balance, Shane Black has done an excellent job directing “The Nice Guys” in that, from slight material, he has made a little go a long way.

 

Categories
Restaurant review

Shake Shack, Victoria Nova, Victoria, London

 

ruralblog_3864

This is a shiny, brand new, glass fronted burger and hot dog restaurant on the corner in Victoria Nova. The building is beautiful and given the location, there will be a lot of passing trade. It is licensed, so it sells beer and wine, although I did not order any with my burger, and to be honest I did not see any alcohol on any of the tables that were occupied.

The burgers are marketed at the top of the price range, advertised as being 100% Aberdeen Angus beef, source verified and traceable. I don’t doubt that this is true. I had a single smoke shack, which comes with bacon, cheese and cherry peppers.

It was good without being exceptional, the cherry peppers were a nice addition, but the meat  was a little bit greasy for my taste. The chips were an extra £3 and were poor value. There wasn’t enough of them, and they were crinkle cut, semi-crispy and hollow. They were also cold when they arrived, although when I complained they changed them without query. The shake was nice and thick, but very sweet, perhaps they are more aimed at children than adults.

Given all the new high-end burger joints opening in London, the competition must be fierce and this did not strike me as one of the best. Sorry to say, I think “5 Guys” does it better.

Categories
Theatre review

The Wild Party, The Other Palace, Victoria, London.

the-wild-party-11669

Andrew Lloyd Webber has bought the theatre that used to be known as The St. James Theatre and changed its name to The Other Palace. He wishes it to become the place where writers and producers can try out and refine new work.

The first show here is “The Wild Party”. This musical has a lot of good things going for it. The ensemble are fantastic, the songs are good, the comedy songs are very funny. The dancing and choreography are fast and good, the characters are interesting and flawed.

For me, the music is too loud for the size of the theatre, it took me about three songs for my hearing to adjust enough to understand the lyrics. This is a shame because the lyrics that I did hear were acerbic and funny. The ending is a bit of an anti-climax, if ever a show needs an encore routine, this is one. This is such a disappointment because so much of the rest of the show is wonderful.

The songs are a nice mixture of vibrant, funny and bitter. The dialogue is sharp. The choreography is dynamic and energetic. The atmosphere is decadent and sexy. The closing series of songs in the first act is amazing and if they were to somehow make this the finale of the whole show, it would run forever.

It is hard to pick out individual performances, not only because everyone is very good, but also because everyone in the show has their own part to play. There is no chorus here.

Frances Ruffelle and John Owen-Jones have beautiful emotive voices. Donna McKechnie and Bronte Barbe are both funny and have a great song each, showing off their range. Steven Serlin and Sebastien Torkia are a clever comedy double act. Gloria Obianyo and Genesis Lynea are excellent at joining the show together. Victoria Hamilton-Barritt arrives late and threatens to steal the show. The dancing is uniformly outstanding.

This show truly is a wild party, bringing with it all that this entails. It is an exhilarating rollercoaster ride, and like all the best parties – although I may have some regrets the next day, I wouldn’t miss it for the world.

Categories
Film Review

Penelope (dir. Mark Palansky) 2006

29penelope-600

Penelope has a high quality cast. It is a film studded with famous names. Christina Ricci and James McAvoy play the leads, but it also has Richard E. Grant, Ronni Ancona, Peter Dinklage, Nick Frost, Reese Witherspoon, Catherine O’Hara and many other recognisable people. In fact, I have to say we did enjoy playing spot the celebrity throughout this film.

The acting was actually good, but I cannot say that I enjoyed this movie. I didn’t like the premise. It is about a young girl who has a curse set upon her, causing her to be born with a pig’s nose. It set out to say that beauty is only skin deep and that the person is more important than how they look. However, the writer and director obviously did not believe this to be true, you could tell by the over-reaction of everyone to Penelope’s nose. Her parents believed that it was okay to keep her hidden from the world because of her looks. They felt that they would have to trick someone into marrying her. I was also not keen on a 21st century film suggesting that the only good outcome for a young girl is marriage.

I did not like the outcome of the film. I hated that the “happy ending” was not that somebody was able to love her for herself, but that her nose got fixed!

I understand that this film is marketed at children or young adults and that it is not aimed at my age group, but that makes it almost worse in a way. The film implies, as a joke admittedly, that it is normal behavior for people to run away and jump out of windows to get away from people who don’t conform to a look that we see as normal.

I realise that people have conflicting views and others may see this film differently, but if I had children of that age, this is not a movie that I would be taking them to see.