Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Colette (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“The hand that holds the pen writes history”.
Colette is yet another tale of female empowerment: a woman with real talent trying to break out of the gilded cage she finds herself trapped in.
The plot
This is a true story, set in Paris in the late 19th Century. Colette (Keira Knightley), a beautiful country girl living in Burgundy is seduced by and then married to the much older Parisian ‘literary entrepreneur’ Willy (Dominic West). Willy is a “brand” in Paris: a well-known critic turned author. The only problem being that he does virtually no writing of his own but ghosts work out to his team. Colette exhibits a gift for writing slightly lascivious tales of her life (under the pseudonym Claudine) at her girl’s school, where clearly nighttime swimming lessons taught more than back stroke! As a result, Willy fills a financial hole by publishing Colette’s work in his name. The books fly off the shelves faster than the publishers can print them. But Willy has expensive habits and Colette gets locked into writing an ever-popular series but without a voice of her own.
Bohemian Rhapsodies
If the swinging 60’s started anywhere, it was probably in Paris during this time period! While Victorian England was staid and conservative, Paris – home of the Moulin Rouge – was a hot-bed of liberation. As a result, Colette and Willy’s marital affairs are – erm – sexually ‘fluid’. While Colette has to learn to live with her philandering ‘Free Willy’, he positively encourages the bi-sexual Colette to explore the other camp, as it were.
The turns
Keira Knightley turns in a truly cracking performance in the titular lead. No-one does ‘brooding’ better than Knightley, and she gets ample chance here to exercise that look, most notably in a train scene near the end of the film: if looks could kill.
Dominic West delivers as reliably a solid performance as you would expect from him, but he is such a despicable and loathsome character that it is difficult to warm to him.
Driving me mad (not sexually you understand…. although…) was the girl playing the American double-dip love interest Georgie: I knew her so well but just couldn’t place her. It was the American accent that threw me: she is of course Eleanor Tomlinson, Demelza from TV’s “Poldark”, here showing a lot more flesh than she can get away with on a Sunday night on BBC1!
An interesting choice of language
The film is obviously in English about one of France’s literary greats (although curiously Colette writes in French). My guess is that the film will go down like a lead balloon in France as a result. A part of me would have liked this to be French language with subtitles, but maybe that’s just me.
When you look at it objectively, Colette’s story is quite remarkable: what a clever and determined woman.
Gorgeous to look at
Aside from Knightley, the other star turn in the film comes from cinematographer Giles Nuttgens (who also did “Hell or High Water“). The scenes, particularly the bucolic ones set in the French countryside, are simply gorgeously photographed. The framing of the shots is also exquisite with an impressive shot of the slog up a spiral staircase to the couple’s flat being repeatedly used.
Sex vs violence – still not on a par in 2019
It remains curious to me how prudish both the UK and the US are still about sex on screen. In the UK the film is a 15 certificate; in the US the film is R-rated! Yes, there are some breasts on show, and a few mixed- and same-sex couplings (particularly during a frenetic 5 minute period in the middle of the film!), but they are artfully done and you don’t get to see much more than the breasts. In comparison, the violence that would get meted out during a 15/R action thriller would typically makes my eyes water.
But is it any good?
This is one of those films that is worthy, beautifully done, well acted but for some reason it felt to me like a bit of a slog. At 111 minutes it certainly felt a lot longer than it was. The middle reel of the film in particular is rather pedestrian (and yes, I recognise the irony of the fact that I just said there was the frenetic 5 minutes of sex during that part!). Maybe on the night I was just not in the mood for this type of film.
The director is Englishman Wash Westmoreland, whose last film back in 2014 was the impressive “Still Alice”.
I’m glad I’ve seen it, and it is a lot better than many films I saw last year. But in terms of my “re-watchability” quotient, its not going to rate that highly.
The plot
This is a true story, set in Paris in the late 19th Century. Colette (Keira Knightley), a beautiful country girl living in Burgundy is seduced by and then married to the much older Parisian ‘literary entrepreneur’ Willy (Dominic West). Willy is a “brand” in Paris: a well-known critic turned author. The only problem being that he does virtually no writing of his own but ghosts work out to his team. Colette exhibits a gift for writing slightly lascivious tales of her life (under the pseudonym Claudine) at her girl’s school, where clearly nighttime swimming lessons taught more than back stroke! As a result, Willy fills a financial hole by publishing Colette’s work in his name. The books fly off the shelves faster than the publishers can print them. But Willy has expensive habits and Colette gets locked into writing an ever-popular series but without a voice of her own.
Bohemian Rhapsodies
If the swinging 60’s started anywhere, it was probably in Paris during this time period! While Victorian England was staid and conservative, Paris – home of the Moulin Rouge – was a hot-bed of liberation. As a result, Colette and Willy’s marital affairs are – erm – sexually ‘fluid’. While Colette has to learn to live with her philandering ‘Free Willy’, he positively encourages the bi-sexual Colette to explore the other camp, as it were.
The turns
Keira Knightley turns in a truly cracking performance in the titular lead. No-one does ‘brooding’ better than Knightley, and she gets ample chance here to exercise that look, most notably in a train scene near the end of the film: if looks could kill.
Dominic West delivers as reliably a solid performance as you would expect from him, but he is such a despicable and loathsome character that it is difficult to warm to him.
Driving me mad (not sexually you understand…. although…) was the girl playing the American double-dip love interest Georgie: I knew her so well but just couldn’t place her. It was the American accent that threw me: she is of course Eleanor Tomlinson, Demelza from TV’s “Poldark”, here showing a lot more flesh than she can get away with on a Sunday night on BBC1!
An interesting choice of language
The film is obviously in English about one of France’s literary greats (although curiously Colette writes in French). My guess is that the film will go down like a lead balloon in France as a result. A part of me would have liked this to be French language with subtitles, but maybe that’s just me.
When you look at it objectively, Colette’s story is quite remarkable: what a clever and determined woman.
Gorgeous to look at
Aside from Knightley, the other star turn in the film comes from cinematographer Giles Nuttgens (who also did “Hell or High Water“). The scenes, particularly the bucolic ones set in the French countryside, are simply gorgeously photographed. The framing of the shots is also exquisite with an impressive shot of the slog up a spiral staircase to the couple’s flat being repeatedly used.
Sex vs violence – still not on a par in 2019
It remains curious to me how prudish both the UK and the US are still about sex on screen. In the UK the film is a 15 certificate; in the US the film is R-rated! Yes, there are some breasts on show, and a few mixed- and same-sex couplings (particularly during a frenetic 5 minute period in the middle of the film!), but they are artfully done and you don’t get to see much more than the breasts. In comparison, the violence that would get meted out during a 15/R action thriller would typically makes my eyes water.
But is it any good?
This is one of those films that is worthy, beautifully done, well acted but for some reason it felt to me like a bit of a slog. At 111 minutes it certainly felt a lot longer than it was. The middle reel of the film in particular is rather pedestrian (and yes, I recognise the irony of the fact that I just said there was the frenetic 5 minutes of sex during that part!). Maybe on the night I was just not in the mood for this type of film.
The director is Englishman Wash Westmoreland, whose last film back in 2014 was the impressive “Still Alice”.
I’m glad I’ve seen it, and it is a lot better than many films I saw last year. But in terms of my “re-watchability” quotient, its not going to rate that highly.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Quiet Place (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“There’s a kind of hush, all over the world tonight”.
What a masterpiece this is! The most novel, the most tense, the most exhilarating, the most edge-of-your-seat Indie horror movie I could hope to see this year.
It’s 2020 and 89 days after “it” happens, the world is a very different place. Making any noise at all becomes a death sentence…. that bad cold could kill you and nothing seems to be able to prevent mankind from being annihilated one sneeze at a time.
In what could be a nice “Cloverfield”-style series, the action here focuses in on the resourceful Abbott family: the father Lee (John Krasinski, “Away We Go”) is handy with electronics and back-woods skills; the mother Evelyn (Emily Blunt, “The Girl on the Train“; “Edge of Tomorrow“) has medical training. So they are well suited then to take care of their offspring: the profoundly deaf Regan (Millicent Simmonds); Marcus (Noah Jupe); and their youngest Beau (a cute Cade Woodward). It’s a battle of brains against vicious, relentless and malevolent alien brawn: how far will Lee and Evelyn go to keep their family safe?
Man, this is a tense film! It doesn’t pull its punches from the get-go and thereafter there is an air of brooding and ever-building menace that gets right under your skin. This is certainly not helped by the fact that there is a ticking clock of an oncoming ‘event’ – no spoilers here – to worry about. As incessantly and inevitably as the rising tide in “The Shallows” a clock ticks down. Thank heavens then that the ‘event’ and the outcome of that ‘event’ are both traditionally such quiet affairs!
While all of the buzz at the moment is on the 80’s Easter Eggs in “Ready Player One”, here is a movie packed with delights for movie lovers. There are recognisable elements here from such classics as “The Road”, “Signs”, “Witness”, “Alien”, “Jurassic Park”, “Jaws”…. even (traumatically) “Home Alone”! So is it then just a rag-bag collection of stolen moments from other films? No – not at all. This stands tall and proud as a master work in its own right, the standout and unique quality of the movie being its use (or rather absence) of sound… something that works so magnificently as a concept in a movie-theatre.
I was lucky enough in the late September of 1979 to see (at 10 am in the morning as I remember!) in the Odeon Leicester Square in London, the first ever UK (and probably worldwide) showing of a little film called “Alien”. The cinema was pretty empty, but I have never sat through such an electric viewing. This had some of the same aura about it: a hushed audience, totally gripped. (I agree with Simon Mayo and Ali Plumb on this though that all snacks, and especially popcorn in scrapy SCRAPY cardboard boxes, should be banned from these screenings… I had to physically move seats away a noisy muncher as the film started!). But for sure, distractions accepted, this is a classic communal movie experience and so is a movie you should most DEFINITELY see in the cinema.
If there is one Oscar for February 2019 that I think should already be a shoe-in for a nomination, if not a win, it is the sound team led by Erik Aadahl and Ethan Van der Ryn: breathtakingly spectacular. This is assisted enormously by the musical score of Marco Beltrami (“Logan“, “The Shallows“) which helps augment and annotate the action jump-scares brilliantly.
Another critical member of the crew for a film like this is the editor, and here Christopher Tellefsen (“Joy“) delivers the goods with tight and effective execution of those cuts (the film sort!) that made me vertically leave my seat at least a couple of times.
Real life couple Krasinski and Blunt share such obvious and tender chemistry that it is impossible to not get emotionally involved. A shared iPhone listening moment, as a lull in the action, is very moving. Millicent Simmonds, who is actually deaf from childhood in an inspired piece of storytelling/casting, is also an acting force to be reckoned with: her only other movie is last year’s “Wonderstruck” that I have yet to see.
Writers Bryan Woods and Scott Beck (with contribution to the screenplay from Krasinski) also deserve praise for an intelligent and highly satisfying plot that never fails to disappoint to the last drop. Every detail, down to the painted footsteps on the un-squeaky floorboards, is just pitch-perfect. It’s also a film that very wisely doesn’t outstay its welcome: 90 minutes of such adrenaline is almost too much for anyone to stand! Krasinski as director keeps everything deliciously tight during that running time with no time to breath, particularly in the frenetic final reel.
I’ve gushed enough. This is a must see for sci-fi and horror fans of all ages. And with a “BvS quotient” of just 6.8%, it’s enormously good value for money. Go see it!
It’s 2020 and 89 days after “it” happens, the world is a very different place. Making any noise at all becomes a death sentence…. that bad cold could kill you and nothing seems to be able to prevent mankind from being annihilated one sneeze at a time.
In what could be a nice “Cloverfield”-style series, the action here focuses in on the resourceful Abbott family: the father Lee (John Krasinski, “Away We Go”) is handy with electronics and back-woods skills; the mother Evelyn (Emily Blunt, “The Girl on the Train“; “Edge of Tomorrow“) has medical training. So they are well suited then to take care of their offspring: the profoundly deaf Regan (Millicent Simmonds); Marcus (Noah Jupe); and their youngest Beau (a cute Cade Woodward). It’s a battle of brains against vicious, relentless and malevolent alien brawn: how far will Lee and Evelyn go to keep their family safe?
Man, this is a tense film! It doesn’t pull its punches from the get-go and thereafter there is an air of brooding and ever-building menace that gets right under your skin. This is certainly not helped by the fact that there is a ticking clock of an oncoming ‘event’ – no spoilers here – to worry about. As incessantly and inevitably as the rising tide in “The Shallows” a clock ticks down. Thank heavens then that the ‘event’ and the outcome of that ‘event’ are both traditionally such quiet affairs!
While all of the buzz at the moment is on the 80’s Easter Eggs in “Ready Player One”, here is a movie packed with delights for movie lovers. There are recognisable elements here from such classics as “The Road”, “Signs”, “Witness”, “Alien”, “Jurassic Park”, “Jaws”…. even (traumatically) “Home Alone”! So is it then just a rag-bag collection of stolen moments from other films? No – not at all. This stands tall and proud as a master work in its own right, the standout and unique quality of the movie being its use (or rather absence) of sound… something that works so magnificently as a concept in a movie-theatre.
I was lucky enough in the late September of 1979 to see (at 10 am in the morning as I remember!) in the Odeon Leicester Square in London, the first ever UK (and probably worldwide) showing of a little film called “Alien”. The cinema was pretty empty, but I have never sat through such an electric viewing. This had some of the same aura about it: a hushed audience, totally gripped. (I agree with Simon Mayo and Ali Plumb on this though that all snacks, and especially popcorn in scrapy SCRAPY cardboard boxes, should be banned from these screenings… I had to physically move seats away a noisy muncher as the film started!). But for sure, distractions accepted, this is a classic communal movie experience and so is a movie you should most DEFINITELY see in the cinema.
If there is one Oscar for February 2019 that I think should already be a shoe-in for a nomination, if not a win, it is the sound team led by Erik Aadahl and Ethan Van der Ryn: breathtakingly spectacular. This is assisted enormously by the musical score of Marco Beltrami (“Logan“, “The Shallows“) which helps augment and annotate the action jump-scares brilliantly.
Another critical member of the crew for a film like this is the editor, and here Christopher Tellefsen (“Joy“) delivers the goods with tight and effective execution of those cuts (the film sort!) that made me vertically leave my seat at least a couple of times.
Real life couple Krasinski and Blunt share such obvious and tender chemistry that it is impossible to not get emotionally involved. A shared iPhone listening moment, as a lull in the action, is very moving. Millicent Simmonds, who is actually deaf from childhood in an inspired piece of storytelling/casting, is also an acting force to be reckoned with: her only other movie is last year’s “Wonderstruck” that I have yet to see.
Writers Bryan Woods and Scott Beck (with contribution to the screenplay from Krasinski) also deserve praise for an intelligent and highly satisfying plot that never fails to disappoint to the last drop. Every detail, down to the painted footsteps on the un-squeaky floorboards, is just pitch-perfect. It’s also a film that very wisely doesn’t outstay its welcome: 90 minutes of such adrenaline is almost too much for anyone to stand! Krasinski as director keeps everything deliciously tight during that running time with no time to breath, particularly in the frenetic final reel.
I’ve gushed enough. This is a must see for sci-fi and horror fans of all ages. And with a “BvS quotient” of just 6.8%, it’s enormously good value for money. Go see it!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Hitman's Bodyguard (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A plethora of clichés.
2017’s summer blockbusters fizzle to a halt with this formulaic action comedy. Ryan Reynolds (“Deadpool“) plays Michael Bryce: a cocksure “Triple A rated” bodyguard, always planning three steps ahead so that he can protect his clients without killing anyone in the process. With such arrogance, a fall is inevitable. On the other side of the legal scales is Darius Kincaid (Samuel L Jackson, “The Hateful Eight“), a contract killer who always gets his man. But the incarcerated Kincaid is offered a deal to release his equally incarcerated wife Sonia (Selma Hayek) in return for testifying against the fearsome Belarus president Vladislav Dukhovich (Gary Oldman, “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes”), on trial for war crimes at The Hague. An Interpol team led by Bryce’s’s ex-squeeze Amelia Roussel (the striking Elodie Yung) now have to get Kincaid to Belgium unscathed with Dukhovich’s well-trained and well-armed thugs stopping at nothing to ensure he won’t be there to testify. Fate transpires that Bryce and Kincaid become an unlikely team in trying to bring Dukhovich to justice.
After losing your no claims bonus, hysterical laughter is the only way forwards. Ryan Reynolds and Samuel L Jackson.
This is a movie whose script seems to have been glued together from a patchwork of other movie scenes:
– the bad guy / bad guy partner relationship of “The Nice Guys“. Check.
– the street ambush of “Clear and Present Danger”. Check.
– the Amsterdam boat chase of “Puppet on a Chain”. Check.
– the comedic bar-room brawl from “Airplane”. Check.
Many of the action scenes are done with panache and some great stunt work. But it’s all stuff we’ve seen countless times before, so what is needed for differentiation is the relationships between Bryce and Kincaid: this needs to be the cornerstone of the film. But it just doesn’t quite work. Jackson’s contribution is never in doubt, even though we’ve seen this motherf-ing shtick countless times before: he’s still magnetic, charismatic and a joy to watch. But unfortunately Reynolds just doesn’t deliver the acting goods to make the banter believable: there is a reason “Deadpool” is his best film – he wears a mask for most of it! His ‘puppy-dog look’ gets rolled out multiple times, but it’s unconvincing in the extreme. Together they are no match for Gosling/Crowe in “The Nice Guys“.
Nun but the brave. Jackson (if not Reynolds) get happy clappy.
On firmer ground is the quirky relationship between Mr and Mrs Kincaid. Although sharing limited screen time together, Hayek and Jackson spark off each other wonderfully. Seeing Selma Hayek in uncharacteristically sweary and belligerent mode was highly entertaining (although it’s worth commenting that my wife took great offence to the ‘comic’ bullying of an overweight cellmate).
“I had to ask the guy next to me to pinch me to make sure I wasn’t dreaming” – the future Mr and Mrs Kincaid meet in a rough place… the seediest dive on the wharf.
Elsewhere in the acting roll call, Elodie Yung delivers just the right measure of cuteness, toughness and passion as Roussel, but Oldman delivers a full-on retread of his Ivan “Get off my plane” Korshunov from “Air Force One”. There is also a change to Oldman’s character’s face at the end of the film in the form of a rampant skin complaint which is ‘explained’ by a clumsily inserted news item about an “attempted poisoning”: it’s such a clunky and bizarre addition to the script that it made me wonder whether the actor has some unexpected ailment (like shingles) during filming…. but I can see nothing related to this online.
The striking Elodie Yung as the Interpol agent Roussel.
The screenplay by relative newcomer Tom O’Connor bumps along from implausible action scene to implausible action scene, with more that its fair share of ‘WTF’ moments. For example, after a random chase through multiple Amsterdam alleys and shops, Jackson pulls up outside the very DIY shop Reynolds ends up in to pick him up! The script is also tonally uneven throughout: given this is supposed to be an “action comedy” the action is often brutal and unpleasant and the comedy – in the main – just not funny enough. (About the funniest thing in the film are the most ineffective sub machine guns known to man, most notably in the mildly ludicrous, if well staged, boat chase scene!)
An entertaining cameo from Richard E Grant as a businessman in danger.
The film also manages to offend, in more ways than the 15-rated violence and language used: I’m not sure WHEN this movie was actually filmed, but the use of an articulated lorry as a terrorist weapon towards the end of the film is certainly in very poor taste after the events of Nice, London and Barcelona. Not appreciated.
Directed by Patrick Hughes (“The Expendables 3″…. say no more) this hodge-podge of a flick is sporadically entertaining, but is one I will struggle to remember in a couple of months time.
After losing your no claims bonus, hysterical laughter is the only way forwards. Ryan Reynolds and Samuel L Jackson.
This is a movie whose script seems to have been glued together from a patchwork of other movie scenes:
– the bad guy / bad guy partner relationship of “The Nice Guys“. Check.
– the street ambush of “Clear and Present Danger”. Check.
– the Amsterdam boat chase of “Puppet on a Chain”. Check.
– the comedic bar-room brawl from “Airplane”. Check.
Many of the action scenes are done with panache and some great stunt work. But it’s all stuff we’ve seen countless times before, so what is needed for differentiation is the relationships between Bryce and Kincaid: this needs to be the cornerstone of the film. But it just doesn’t quite work. Jackson’s contribution is never in doubt, even though we’ve seen this motherf-ing shtick countless times before: he’s still magnetic, charismatic and a joy to watch. But unfortunately Reynolds just doesn’t deliver the acting goods to make the banter believable: there is a reason “Deadpool” is his best film – he wears a mask for most of it! His ‘puppy-dog look’ gets rolled out multiple times, but it’s unconvincing in the extreme. Together they are no match for Gosling/Crowe in “The Nice Guys“.
Nun but the brave. Jackson (if not Reynolds) get happy clappy.
On firmer ground is the quirky relationship between Mr and Mrs Kincaid. Although sharing limited screen time together, Hayek and Jackson spark off each other wonderfully. Seeing Selma Hayek in uncharacteristically sweary and belligerent mode was highly entertaining (although it’s worth commenting that my wife took great offence to the ‘comic’ bullying of an overweight cellmate).
“I had to ask the guy next to me to pinch me to make sure I wasn’t dreaming” – the future Mr and Mrs Kincaid meet in a rough place… the seediest dive on the wharf.
Elsewhere in the acting roll call, Elodie Yung delivers just the right measure of cuteness, toughness and passion as Roussel, but Oldman delivers a full-on retread of his Ivan “Get off my plane” Korshunov from “Air Force One”. There is also a change to Oldman’s character’s face at the end of the film in the form of a rampant skin complaint which is ‘explained’ by a clumsily inserted news item about an “attempted poisoning”: it’s such a clunky and bizarre addition to the script that it made me wonder whether the actor has some unexpected ailment (like shingles) during filming…. but I can see nothing related to this online.
The striking Elodie Yung as the Interpol agent Roussel.
The screenplay by relative newcomer Tom O’Connor bumps along from implausible action scene to implausible action scene, with more that its fair share of ‘WTF’ moments. For example, after a random chase through multiple Amsterdam alleys and shops, Jackson pulls up outside the very DIY shop Reynolds ends up in to pick him up! The script is also tonally uneven throughout: given this is supposed to be an “action comedy” the action is often brutal and unpleasant and the comedy – in the main – just not funny enough. (About the funniest thing in the film are the most ineffective sub machine guns known to man, most notably in the mildly ludicrous, if well staged, boat chase scene!)
An entertaining cameo from Richard E Grant as a businessman in danger.
The film also manages to offend, in more ways than the 15-rated violence and language used: I’m not sure WHEN this movie was actually filmed, but the use of an articulated lorry as a terrorist weapon towards the end of the film is certainly in very poor taste after the events of Nice, London and Barcelona. Not appreciated.
Directed by Patrick Hughes (“The Expendables 3″…. say no more) this hodge-podge of a flick is sporadically entertaining, but is one I will struggle to remember in a couple of months time.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Fold-it in Tabletop Games
Dec 28, 2021
When it comes to cooking, I am definitely no master chef. Up until recently, ‘cooking’ for me consisted of merely putting frozen food into the oven…. Don’t judge! I am taking strides to expand my culinary skills though, so slowly but surely I’ll become a (hopefully) decent chef. That being said, when I saw a cute little food game called Fold-It, I figured that I should at least be able to handle these game recipes. Does it hit the spot, or does it get the chop?
Fold-It is a real-time dexterity puzzle game in which players are trying to fold their Recipe Cloth to match the current Order Card. Setup is simple – give each player a Recipe Cloth and 3 Star Tokens. Choose whether you want to play with the Basic or Advanced Order Cards (or a mix of both types) and shuffle the deck. Place a number of Fold-It tokens in the middle of the table to equal one fewer token than number of players. The game is now ready to begin!
Played over a series of rounds, players will be racing to complete the current Order Card the fastest. How? By folding their Recipe Cloth! Each Recipe Cloth is printed with a 4×4 grid of different dishes. The Order Cards each show a combination of 1-4 dishes. When an Order Card is revealed, all players will then try to fold and arrange their Recipe Cloth so that only the dishes from the Order Card are displayed. You can fold your cloth horizontally or vertically along the columns, and the cloth is double-sided to help accomplish your goal as well. Once you have folded your Recipe Cloth so that the dishes match the Order Card, grab one of the Fold-It tokens from the center of the table. When all the Fold-It tokens have been claimed, check each completed Recipe Cloth to verify that it is correct. If your Recipe Cloth matches, then you are in the clear! But if you made a mistake and had grabbed a Fold-It token, lose one of your Star tokens. *womp womp* The remaining player who was not able to grab a Fold-It token in the round discards one of their 3 Star tokens as well. The round is now over, and a new round begins by revealing the next Order Card. Play continues in this fashion until only one player remains with Star tokens. That player is declared the winner!
I have to admit that Fold-It surprised me, in a good way. I picked it up from a “Buy, Sell, Trade” Facebook group and really wasn’t expecting much from the gameplay. But when I actually got it to the table, I had a blast with it! The theme is cute, the gameplay is quirky, and it’s actually trickier than it looks. Some of the orders require you to fold the cloth in unique ways, and it can kind of be a brain burner. Add in the real-time racing element, and you’ve got an exciting game on your hands. Is it the most amazing and strategic game that I’ve ever played? No. But it’s pretty engaging for a light and fast filler game.
The components are pretty straight-forward. Cardboard tokens, nice sturdy cards, and actual cloth for the Recipe Cloth. The artwork is colorful and cute, and the tokens and cards will withstand many plays. I do especially like the Recipe Cloths too. The fact that they are actual cloth means that you won’t be worried about creasing issues from constant folding and unfolding between rounds and games. The cloths are double-sided as well to give you a boost for strategy as well. I will point out that all cloths are printed the exact same way, so it’s not like a Bingo board that varies between players. Everyone has the same tools with which to work each round, and everyone is on an even playing field that way. Nice components overall, in my opinion!
All in all, am I happy with my Fold-It purchase? Yes. It’s a quirky little filler game that is engaging and entertaining for all players. Yeah, there’s a player elimination element, but the game overall is so fast that the eliminated player(s) won’t be sitting around for long. Who knew that folding a piece of cloth could get your heart racing so fast? Fold-It is definitely a game that I’ll pull out when I need something quick and simple, or with which I can introduce people to the hobby. I guess if you play it too much, it would get kind of stale, but I don’t see that happening for me. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a tasty 4 / 6.
Fold-It is a real-time dexterity puzzle game in which players are trying to fold their Recipe Cloth to match the current Order Card. Setup is simple – give each player a Recipe Cloth and 3 Star Tokens. Choose whether you want to play with the Basic or Advanced Order Cards (or a mix of both types) and shuffle the deck. Place a number of Fold-It tokens in the middle of the table to equal one fewer token than number of players. The game is now ready to begin!
Played over a series of rounds, players will be racing to complete the current Order Card the fastest. How? By folding their Recipe Cloth! Each Recipe Cloth is printed with a 4×4 grid of different dishes. The Order Cards each show a combination of 1-4 dishes. When an Order Card is revealed, all players will then try to fold and arrange their Recipe Cloth so that only the dishes from the Order Card are displayed. You can fold your cloth horizontally or vertically along the columns, and the cloth is double-sided to help accomplish your goal as well. Once you have folded your Recipe Cloth so that the dishes match the Order Card, grab one of the Fold-It tokens from the center of the table. When all the Fold-It tokens have been claimed, check each completed Recipe Cloth to verify that it is correct. If your Recipe Cloth matches, then you are in the clear! But if you made a mistake and had grabbed a Fold-It token, lose one of your Star tokens. *womp womp* The remaining player who was not able to grab a Fold-It token in the round discards one of their 3 Star tokens as well. The round is now over, and a new round begins by revealing the next Order Card. Play continues in this fashion until only one player remains with Star tokens. That player is declared the winner!
I have to admit that Fold-It surprised me, in a good way. I picked it up from a “Buy, Sell, Trade” Facebook group and really wasn’t expecting much from the gameplay. But when I actually got it to the table, I had a blast with it! The theme is cute, the gameplay is quirky, and it’s actually trickier than it looks. Some of the orders require you to fold the cloth in unique ways, and it can kind of be a brain burner. Add in the real-time racing element, and you’ve got an exciting game on your hands. Is it the most amazing and strategic game that I’ve ever played? No. But it’s pretty engaging for a light and fast filler game.
The components are pretty straight-forward. Cardboard tokens, nice sturdy cards, and actual cloth for the Recipe Cloth. The artwork is colorful and cute, and the tokens and cards will withstand many plays. I do especially like the Recipe Cloths too. The fact that they are actual cloth means that you won’t be worried about creasing issues from constant folding and unfolding between rounds and games. The cloths are double-sided as well to give you a boost for strategy as well. I will point out that all cloths are printed the exact same way, so it’s not like a Bingo board that varies between players. Everyone has the same tools with which to work each round, and everyone is on an even playing field that way. Nice components overall, in my opinion!
All in all, am I happy with my Fold-It purchase? Yes. It’s a quirky little filler game that is engaging and entertaining for all players. Yeah, there’s a player elimination element, but the game overall is so fast that the eliminated player(s) won’t be sitting around for long. Who knew that folding a piece of cloth could get your heart racing so fast? Fold-It is definitely a game that I’ll pull out when I need something quick and simple, or with which I can introduce people to the hobby. I guess if you play it too much, it would get kind of stale, but I don’t see that happening for me. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a tasty 4 / 6.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Man of Steel (2013) in Movies
May 21, 2019
"It's not an s on my world it means hope"
Superman's origin has been retold in comics more than any other character. But how do you reboot such a beloved icon in film form without making his origin feel unnecessary to go through again. By handing him over to the masters of all reboots. While developing the story for The Dark Knight Rises, Director Christopher Nolan and writer David S. Goyer developed a new way to bring the man of steel to life. The duo previously saved Batman and made him a cinematic legend again and now they plan to save Superman from uneven sequels and a stale image. And who did they invite to lead this revival? None other than director Zack Snyder, a visual wizard with a lackluster reputation in storytelling thanks to his remake of Dawn of the Dead, 300, Watchmen and Sucker Punch. Now despite some filmmaking stumbles along the way, the trio make for a surprisingly great combination and deliver the modern Superman film we have waited 75 years for with Man of Steel. We are given both Superman and a Clark Kent who doesn't know his place in the world and is coming to terms with how the public perceives him.
As with all Superman mythology the story begins on Krypton, the planet that's hundreds of thousands of civilized years ahead of Earth. The whole planet is science fiction nirvana. The zooming spaceships, winged beast and advanced technology crafted from liquid metal. For once we experience the entire planet, not just a couple rooms made out of cheap crystal. There's a system of ways things work that has never been fleshed out on screen before. The government, the science and it's culture. At the head of the planet's scientific research is Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and he has discovered proof that may lead to the planet's destruction. But unfortunately his pleas towards his leaders are ignored due to the ongoing civil war with Jor-El's old friend General Zod (Michael Shannon). There's more history to the Jor-El/ Zod dynamic this time around which just enriches their conflict. There are millions of stories concerning Marlon Brando's $3 million dollar slumming in the '78 film. He intentionally mispronounced Krypton, made outrageous production demands and in the end that put him on the cutting room floor for it's sequel. Crowe see's Brando's paycheck acting and raises it with a performance full of gravitas. When conflicts begin to soften and punishments are served, more and more evidence begin to support Jor-El's claims of Krypton's destruction and with time and options exhausted, his final resort is to save his only son Kal-El. Still an infant, Jor-El concludes the only way his son will ever have any chance of life is to be sent to a more primitive alien planet and have a significant advantage over it's species. So he sends him to Earth, where it's sun will grant his body incredible abilities.
Jump 33 years later as the adult Kal-El, now under the name Clark Kent (Henry Cavil) is wandering the world trying to discover his place in it. There are multiple flashbacks to Clark's childhood with his adoptive parents Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). Costner gives a heartfelt performance full of warmth as the father concerned with his son's well-being if the world rejects him. If someone with Clark's abilities were to be exposed to the public, it would be one of the biggest moments in human history. His existence alone would make everyone question religion, science and everything they had ever thought about the universe. And Lane strikes quiet, charming notes as the more understanding mother. Throughout his entire life Clark had been using his powers in secret, from saving derrick workers from fires to fighting a massive hurricane in his hometown of Smallville. If there's one word to describe Cavil's performance it's "Modern". He is not the "Aw shucks" farm boy nor is he the angst filled mess many feared he was going to be. There's still a humbleness, a sweetness and a sense of forthrightness to him. And of course he is a perfect physical representation of the character as well. As much as Christopher Reeve's performance still means to audiences today, it has reached a point where it has unfairly overshadowed the character. The idealism of Reeve's Superman isn't relevant today, at least not in the purest sense of the word. Cavil's Superman understands the difficulty of what his powers mean for the world and understands there really isn't anything to smile about.
Of course you can't tell a Superman story without his supporting players at the Daily Planet. Perry White (Laurence Fishburne, in an inspired piece of casting) knows the only way a newspaper could ever have hope at functioning these days is if they had major exclusives to the first alien ever revealed to the masses. Enter Lois Lane (Amy Adams, full of spunk) who has been chasing Clark's story all across the globe for several years. Lois has always been a tricky character to adapt, seeing how it's difficult for audiences to like her if you get it wrong. Can somebody who can't see Superman past a pair of thick glasses really be a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist? Thankfully, this Lois isn't as Shrill as Margot Kidder or as bland as Kate Bosworth in previous versions. Snyder and Adams treat Lois as the talented, dedicated journalist we know she really is by making her active at her profession and not having to prove anything just because she's a woman. The only thing she has to prove are her credentials, which are just as impressive as everything else about her. While some might be disappointed by the lack of romance between the couple, but to be fair, this isn't a Lois and Clark story, it's the story of Clark discovering his place in the world. But the spark between the two of them is certainly present when they first meet. For Clark to go from a lifetime of loneliness to have somebody instantly discover everything about you and admiring all of it is a luxury he has never had before.
Clark couldn't have picked a better time to make his presence known to the world, with General Zod returning to finish what he started. The cinematic Superman villains have created a history of scenery chewing performances dating back to Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor. Terrence Stamp was the first actor to portray Zod on film in Superman ll, but despite some memorable dialogue ("Kneel before Zod!") he was still essentially just a typical mustache twirling maniac. Zod this time around is nothing but bold tactics and is fully fledged to preserving his lost race, no matter what the cost. Michael Shannon is nothing but pure, demented megalomania. The only disadvantage Zod possesses though is that his body isn't used to the yellow son and must try and control all his new powers at once. Clark on the other hand, has had a lifetime to perfect his gifts.
Visual aesthetics have leaped skyscrapers since the Donner era. Snyder takes that technological advantage and gives fans what they have dreamed of for years. To put it bluntly, to see Supes punch somebody- really fucking hard! Snyder understands all of Superman's abilities and test them on the grandest scale imaginable. And he does so without resorting to his trademark slow-mo sequences and putting macho fantasies on display. In terms of action alone this is the first time the character has been given justice. Even as bombastic or repetitive it occasionally becomes, it can easily be forgiven because the character has been so overdue for it. It is unfortunate that cinematographer Amir Morki captures it all in a rather unpolished handheld style. But at least Snyder's chaotic direction finally seems to have a sense of aim and isn't relying on green screen to tell his stories. It may have to do with the influence of Nolan producing, but the end result is gloriously flashy, gritty and contains a well needed sense of gravity. And while Man of Steel never reaches the same dizzying heights as Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, it still preserves and reintroduces it's legendary character in the same respect.
Snyder, Nolan and Goyer certainly have stayed true to the modern lore of Superman by adapting elements of his classic comic stories Birthright, Man for All Seasons, New Krypton and Earth One, and do so without damaging or over-explaining any of it. But if anything it's a science fiction story first then a comic book adaptation, in the vein of such first contact films as the original Day the Earth Stood Still and War of the Worlds. Man of Steel reminds us that Superman is not human, but still represents the best that humanity has to offer. It's the story of fathers, understanding your roots and taking hold of your destiny. It's always been that way for Superman, ever since he was created by young Jewish immigrants Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.
While the original theme music by John Williams is still the granddaddy of all superhero cinematic anthems, Hans Zimmer still creates a thunderous pulse of a score. Atmospheric, gentle and adrenaline charged, Zimmer accompanies Clark's drifting, the concerns of his parents and Superman's clashes with one perfect note after another.
Christopher Reeve for many people is still going to be the definitive Superman, but that's too be expected. For so long that's all we've had to go on as far as a great man of steel. There are multiple generations separating Reeve and Cavil and multiple generations separating their audiences. Will everyone accept Cavil as this modern Superman that understands today's humanity? As with Batman Begins, the conclusion doesn't technically set itself up for a sequel but it establishes an iconic part of it's universe in a nice wink that makes you want to see more of it. It isn't quite perfect, but this universe certainly deserved to grow. Because unlike what occurred in 2006, this time Superman really has returned.
As with all Superman mythology the story begins on Krypton, the planet that's hundreds of thousands of civilized years ahead of Earth. The whole planet is science fiction nirvana. The zooming spaceships, winged beast and advanced technology crafted from liquid metal. For once we experience the entire planet, not just a couple rooms made out of cheap crystal. There's a system of ways things work that has never been fleshed out on screen before. The government, the science and it's culture. At the head of the planet's scientific research is Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and he has discovered proof that may lead to the planet's destruction. But unfortunately his pleas towards his leaders are ignored due to the ongoing civil war with Jor-El's old friend General Zod (Michael Shannon). There's more history to the Jor-El/ Zod dynamic this time around which just enriches their conflict. There are millions of stories concerning Marlon Brando's $3 million dollar slumming in the '78 film. He intentionally mispronounced Krypton, made outrageous production demands and in the end that put him on the cutting room floor for it's sequel. Crowe see's Brando's paycheck acting and raises it with a performance full of gravitas. When conflicts begin to soften and punishments are served, more and more evidence begin to support Jor-El's claims of Krypton's destruction and with time and options exhausted, his final resort is to save his only son Kal-El. Still an infant, Jor-El concludes the only way his son will ever have any chance of life is to be sent to a more primitive alien planet and have a significant advantage over it's species. So he sends him to Earth, where it's sun will grant his body incredible abilities.
Jump 33 years later as the adult Kal-El, now under the name Clark Kent (Henry Cavil) is wandering the world trying to discover his place in it. There are multiple flashbacks to Clark's childhood with his adoptive parents Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). Costner gives a heartfelt performance full of warmth as the father concerned with his son's well-being if the world rejects him. If someone with Clark's abilities were to be exposed to the public, it would be one of the biggest moments in human history. His existence alone would make everyone question religion, science and everything they had ever thought about the universe. And Lane strikes quiet, charming notes as the more understanding mother. Throughout his entire life Clark had been using his powers in secret, from saving derrick workers from fires to fighting a massive hurricane in his hometown of Smallville. If there's one word to describe Cavil's performance it's "Modern". He is not the "Aw shucks" farm boy nor is he the angst filled mess many feared he was going to be. There's still a humbleness, a sweetness and a sense of forthrightness to him. And of course he is a perfect physical representation of the character as well. As much as Christopher Reeve's performance still means to audiences today, it has reached a point where it has unfairly overshadowed the character. The idealism of Reeve's Superman isn't relevant today, at least not in the purest sense of the word. Cavil's Superman understands the difficulty of what his powers mean for the world and understands there really isn't anything to smile about.
Of course you can't tell a Superman story without his supporting players at the Daily Planet. Perry White (Laurence Fishburne, in an inspired piece of casting) knows the only way a newspaper could ever have hope at functioning these days is if they had major exclusives to the first alien ever revealed to the masses. Enter Lois Lane (Amy Adams, full of spunk) who has been chasing Clark's story all across the globe for several years. Lois has always been a tricky character to adapt, seeing how it's difficult for audiences to like her if you get it wrong. Can somebody who can't see Superman past a pair of thick glasses really be a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist? Thankfully, this Lois isn't as Shrill as Margot Kidder or as bland as Kate Bosworth in previous versions. Snyder and Adams treat Lois as the talented, dedicated journalist we know she really is by making her active at her profession and not having to prove anything just because she's a woman. The only thing she has to prove are her credentials, which are just as impressive as everything else about her. While some might be disappointed by the lack of romance between the couple, but to be fair, this isn't a Lois and Clark story, it's the story of Clark discovering his place in the world. But the spark between the two of them is certainly present when they first meet. For Clark to go from a lifetime of loneliness to have somebody instantly discover everything about you and admiring all of it is a luxury he has never had before.
Clark couldn't have picked a better time to make his presence known to the world, with General Zod returning to finish what he started. The cinematic Superman villains have created a history of scenery chewing performances dating back to Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor. Terrence Stamp was the first actor to portray Zod on film in Superman ll, but despite some memorable dialogue ("Kneel before Zod!") he was still essentially just a typical mustache twirling maniac. Zod this time around is nothing but bold tactics and is fully fledged to preserving his lost race, no matter what the cost. Michael Shannon is nothing but pure, demented megalomania. The only disadvantage Zod possesses though is that his body isn't used to the yellow son and must try and control all his new powers at once. Clark on the other hand, has had a lifetime to perfect his gifts.
Visual aesthetics have leaped skyscrapers since the Donner era. Snyder takes that technological advantage and gives fans what they have dreamed of for years. To put it bluntly, to see Supes punch somebody- really fucking hard! Snyder understands all of Superman's abilities and test them on the grandest scale imaginable. And he does so without resorting to his trademark slow-mo sequences and putting macho fantasies on display. In terms of action alone this is the first time the character has been given justice. Even as bombastic or repetitive it occasionally becomes, it can easily be forgiven because the character has been so overdue for it. It is unfortunate that cinematographer Amir Morki captures it all in a rather unpolished handheld style. But at least Snyder's chaotic direction finally seems to have a sense of aim and isn't relying on green screen to tell his stories. It may have to do with the influence of Nolan producing, but the end result is gloriously flashy, gritty and contains a well needed sense of gravity. And while Man of Steel never reaches the same dizzying heights as Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, it still preserves and reintroduces it's legendary character in the same respect.
Snyder, Nolan and Goyer certainly have stayed true to the modern lore of Superman by adapting elements of his classic comic stories Birthright, Man for All Seasons, New Krypton and Earth One, and do so without damaging or over-explaining any of it. But if anything it's a science fiction story first then a comic book adaptation, in the vein of such first contact films as the original Day the Earth Stood Still and War of the Worlds. Man of Steel reminds us that Superman is not human, but still represents the best that humanity has to offer. It's the story of fathers, understanding your roots and taking hold of your destiny. It's always been that way for Superman, ever since he was created by young Jewish immigrants Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.
While the original theme music by John Williams is still the granddaddy of all superhero cinematic anthems, Hans Zimmer still creates a thunderous pulse of a score. Atmospheric, gentle and adrenaline charged, Zimmer accompanies Clark's drifting, the concerns of his parents and Superman's clashes with one perfect note after another.
Christopher Reeve for many people is still going to be the definitive Superman, but that's too be expected. For so long that's all we've had to go on as far as a great man of steel. There are multiple generations separating Reeve and Cavil and multiple generations separating their audiences. Will everyone accept Cavil as this modern Superman that understands today's humanity? As with Batman Begins, the conclusion doesn't technically set itself up for a sequel but it establishes an iconic part of it's universe in a nice wink that makes you want to see more of it. It isn't quite perfect, but this universe certainly deserved to grow. Because unlike what occurred in 2006, this time Superman really has returned.
Jamie (131 KP) rated What To Do With A Duke in Books
Jul 22, 2017
Mild humor (1 more)
Some good discussion about marriage and women
Unstable plot (2 more)
Frustrating characters
Vulgar male lead
A misguided curse
When it comes to historical romance, I look for one of two things: one, a compelling love story with some scenes that make me blush and fan myself; or two, a light and fluffy clean romance, sometimes with a touch of humor. What I demand from all historical romances is for both the romance and the setting to be believable. I’ve started to wonder if my standards are too high. When I went into this book, with the cute cover and hints at a curse, I figured this one might fall on the fluffy side of the spectrum (the cat on the cover may have influenced this assumption). I was sadly mistaken.
The characters seem so non-committal, not just with each other, but with upholding any of the values they claim to have. Catherine was constantly complaining about how she needed peace and solitude to write, but in the first half of the novel whenever she had it she didn’t do it. She blames family for her difficulties with not being able to be the next great novelist, but the problem was really with the fact that she was not all that committed to doing it. Just like she apparently was not all that committed to being a spinster, despite preaching about it constantly. I found Catherine’s character to be frustrating at every turn and had a hard time rooting for her.
Unfortunately, the other half of this love story was hardly any better. Marcus is dreamy for all of a few minutes, until he started talking about his manhood… Which he proceeded to do all the time. Every time the narration would switch to him, inevitably a thought would end with some note about what his cock wants. I suppose Marcus’ raw desire was supposed to be tantalizing, but I honestly just found it vulgar. It didn’t help that everything about Marcus and Catherine’s romance was a lust at first sight sort of scenario. I didn’t feel any real chemistry between them, even by the end when they are apparently in love with each other I still wasn’t feeling it. Literally everything always boiled back down to sex. The rest of the story and dialogue was not even all that funny, clever, or witty, it was just two stubborn people wanting to get in each other’s pants the entire book while being really over dramatic about, well, everything.
Then there is the curse plot line, which I could suspend my belief and go with it for a while, but even that felt like it was poorly thought out. Marcus has to control his desires and avoid marriage because he’s fearful of accidentally impregnating a woman, thus ending his life. Though somehow, he has no problem with brothel women and the risk of impregnating any of them? Because bastard children can’t be heirs? Sure, at that time period they certainly had a harder go of it, but it wasn’t unheard of. And even if that was the case, didn’t the curse start with an illegitimate child born to a woman jilted by her lover? The number of plot holes was staggering and it wouldn’t have been such a big deal if it wasn’t the central focus of the story.
I also didn’t buy the mildly magical ending with the cat. No I don’t hate the cat, on the contrary the cat was perhaps the best character in the entire book. It just seemed too convenient, too hastily put together. I was also bothered by the fact that, in order to I guess create some tension, Marcus had absolutely no interest in finding out the truth about the curse. That alone basically undid all of the effort, all of the worry, all of the focus this character had on this family curse that has weighed so heavily on him for his entire life. It made absolutely no sense for his character. I don’t even want to go into how his character contradicts himself again once the mystery is solved. I hated Marcus.
I almost put this book down after the first couple of chapters, but things picked up around the half way mark. After one scene that actually made me chuckle with the eye brow waggling old ladies, I had hope that maybe the story would redeem itself with the added bit of comedy. I was disappointed that things started to go downhill again once the book attempted to flesh out the curse and develop the romance between Catherine and Marcus. Which, while I’m on that subject – I absolutely hated how that turned out. Catherine spends the entire novel preaching about never wanting to get trapped in a marriage and to never have children, then finds herself trapped. It wasn’t romantic, it was just frustrating.
On a slightly random note, I also noticed at one point an expletive is used that I was fairly certain did not exist in the context that it was used during that time period. After looking it up my assumption was correct – while the word had existed in the more vulgar sense that it is commonly used, as a curse or slang word it didn’t come about until the 1920’s. I know it’s being overly nit picky, but things like that really ruin the immersion in the time period for me.
The characters seem so non-committal, not just with each other, but with upholding any of the values they claim to have. Catherine was constantly complaining about how she needed peace and solitude to write, but in the first half of the novel whenever she had it she didn’t do it. She blames family for her difficulties with not being able to be the next great novelist, but the problem was really with the fact that she was not all that committed to doing it. Just like she apparently was not all that committed to being a spinster, despite preaching about it constantly. I found Catherine’s character to be frustrating at every turn and had a hard time rooting for her.
Unfortunately, the other half of this love story was hardly any better. Marcus is dreamy for all of a few minutes, until he started talking about his manhood… Which he proceeded to do all the time. Every time the narration would switch to him, inevitably a thought would end with some note about what his cock wants. I suppose Marcus’ raw desire was supposed to be tantalizing, but I honestly just found it vulgar. It didn’t help that everything about Marcus and Catherine’s romance was a lust at first sight sort of scenario. I didn’t feel any real chemistry between them, even by the end when they are apparently in love with each other I still wasn’t feeling it. Literally everything always boiled back down to sex. The rest of the story and dialogue was not even all that funny, clever, or witty, it was just two stubborn people wanting to get in each other’s pants the entire book while being really over dramatic about, well, everything.
Then there is the curse plot line, which I could suspend my belief and go with it for a while, but even that felt like it was poorly thought out. Marcus has to control his desires and avoid marriage because he’s fearful of accidentally impregnating a woman, thus ending his life. Though somehow, he has no problem with brothel women and the risk of impregnating any of them? Because bastard children can’t be heirs? Sure, at that time period they certainly had a harder go of it, but it wasn’t unheard of. And even if that was the case, didn’t the curse start with an illegitimate child born to a woman jilted by her lover? The number of plot holes was staggering and it wouldn’t have been such a big deal if it wasn’t the central focus of the story.
I also didn’t buy the mildly magical ending with the cat. No I don’t hate the cat, on the contrary the cat was perhaps the best character in the entire book. It just seemed too convenient, too hastily put together. I was also bothered by the fact that, in order to I guess create some tension, Marcus had absolutely no interest in finding out the truth about the curse. That alone basically undid all of the effort, all of the worry, all of the focus this character had on this family curse that has weighed so heavily on him for his entire life. It made absolutely no sense for his character. I don’t even want to go into how his character contradicts himself again once the mystery is solved. I hated Marcus.
I almost put this book down after the first couple of chapters, but things picked up around the half way mark. After one scene that actually made me chuckle with the eye brow waggling old ladies, I had hope that maybe the story would redeem itself with the added bit of comedy. I was disappointed that things started to go downhill again once the book attempted to flesh out the curse and develop the romance between Catherine and Marcus. Which, while I’m on that subject – I absolutely hated how that turned out. Catherine spends the entire novel preaching about never wanting to get trapped in a marriage and to never have children, then finds herself trapped. It wasn’t romantic, it was just frustrating.
On a slightly random note, I also noticed at one point an expletive is used that I was fairly certain did not exist in the context that it was used during that time period. After looking it up my assumption was correct – while the word had existed in the more vulgar sense that it is commonly used, as a curse or slang word it didn’t come about until the 1920’s. I know it’s being overly nit picky, but things like that really ruin the immersion in the time period for me.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Batman Begins (2005) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
Batman has always seemed to make great viewing and with the darker takes on him of the past to decades, great movies. This was a real treat though. It’s almost a rational take on an irrational super hero. Christopher Nolan has managed to give Batman a human face and the world he inhabits a sense of scale and realism. But that’s not to say that it is lacking in the sense of the theatrical.
Back in 2005, the hype for this film was building, with a new take on the old comic hero taking shape. Though I must admit that the design of the new Batmobile didn’t look cool to me, but I loved the concept of rooting him in a real world. The other questionable point was that lack of the big hitters in terms of the villains. The Joker, Penguin, Riddler and Catwomen were dumped in favour of The Scarecrow and Ra’s al Ghul, with only one that I, as the un-indoctrinated in comic book lore, that I had heard of being The Scarecrow.
But this was not to be a typical Batman film in any sense of the word. In June 2005, Batman was reborn and not only had the career of an independently styled filmmaker, Christopher Nolan blown into the big leagues but Blockbusters had just been redefined, an event not dis-similar in effect t those of Jaws and Star Wars in the 1970’s.
Batman, a Warner Bros. cash cow for decades, was about to cross all the main lines within the industry and a blockbuster with art house sensibilities and real intelligence was about to born. It’s not the first, but it opened the door for Nolan and his like to change the way we think about movies of this kind. It doesn’t seem to be that long ago that Marvel was dominating cinemas was some first-rate adaptations such as X-Men, Spider-man and the underrated Hulk, which in many ways may be classed as a prototype for this, with art house direction from Ang Lee.
The plot of Batman Begins isn’t really that important though that’s not to sell it short. It’s a highly developed and conceived story, packed from the opening frame to the 140th minute, but it’s simply the perfect blend of the evolution of Bruce Wayne into Batman, and the usual diabolical plans of the super-villain, only it doesn’t feel like that when you’re watching it. It feels like a well judged story about a traumatised young man, struggling to come terms with his parents murder, and his place in the world.
Luckily for him, his family are billionaires and his butler is Alfred, or more importantly, Michael Caine! There are of course a whole host of contrivances to explain how Batman’s image was forged, how the Batcave was created and where the Batmobile came from, but no-one’s suggesting that this a documentary. This is a more grounded and psychological approach to the story of a nutcase who dressed up like a bat and fights crime without a single superpower to his aid.
But it’s how Nolan brings all this together that works so well. He addresses things so subtly that you can end up missing them if you blink, or at least fail to see them coming. Wayne is turned into a flamboyant excentric to maintain a distance from his friends, if he even has any. The Batcave never ends up looking how we’d expect either, but it is full of bats if that helps and he does park his car there.
It is not until The Dark Knight that we see a Batcave of sorts and that isn’t even in the grounds of Wayne Manor. So, the direction, conception and writing are great, what about the casting? Christian Bale is Wayne/Batman for me, though the animatistic tone to his voice maybe a little overdone, but I do get it. Katie Holmes is the weakest link and am glad that she was recast for the sequel. The rest of the players are first-rate and this may well be on of the best casts ever assembled for a single film in my opinion.
Gary Oldman, so understated as Lt. Gordon, Caine as Alfred is perfect; Liam Neeson is on top form, which he isn’t always, let’s face it and Morgan Freeman, like Oldman and Caine can seemingly do no wrong. Then there’s Hans Zimmer‘s collaboration with James Newton Howard for the score which is one of Zimmer’s best. Howard is an able composer and he clearly provided many of the excellent emotional riffs, but it was Zimmer who brought this together with his dominant, strident style, colossal beats and pacing.
The look and sound of this film sets it apart from so many of its brethren. Batman Begins is a truly original, relentless and groundbreaking movie that is the best of the comic book movies by a mile, but not necessarily the best comic book adaptation. Spider-man or Watchmen for example, may qualify for the fact that they more literally reflect their respective sources but Nolan’s masterpiece is a blueprint as to how film should tackle such adaptations.
And yes, that’s right; Batman Begins is a masterpiece if ever there was one, though a slightly lesser one in comparison to its own sequel, The Dark Knight which may have completely rewritten the handbook.
Back in 2005, the hype for this film was building, with a new take on the old comic hero taking shape. Though I must admit that the design of the new Batmobile didn’t look cool to me, but I loved the concept of rooting him in a real world. The other questionable point was that lack of the big hitters in terms of the villains. The Joker, Penguin, Riddler and Catwomen were dumped in favour of The Scarecrow and Ra’s al Ghul, with only one that I, as the un-indoctrinated in comic book lore, that I had heard of being The Scarecrow.
But this was not to be a typical Batman film in any sense of the word. In June 2005, Batman was reborn and not only had the career of an independently styled filmmaker, Christopher Nolan blown into the big leagues but Blockbusters had just been redefined, an event not dis-similar in effect t those of Jaws and Star Wars in the 1970’s.
Batman, a Warner Bros. cash cow for decades, was about to cross all the main lines within the industry and a blockbuster with art house sensibilities and real intelligence was about to born. It’s not the first, but it opened the door for Nolan and his like to change the way we think about movies of this kind. It doesn’t seem to be that long ago that Marvel was dominating cinemas was some first-rate adaptations such as X-Men, Spider-man and the underrated Hulk, which in many ways may be classed as a prototype for this, with art house direction from Ang Lee.
The plot of Batman Begins isn’t really that important though that’s not to sell it short. It’s a highly developed and conceived story, packed from the opening frame to the 140th minute, but it’s simply the perfect blend of the evolution of Bruce Wayne into Batman, and the usual diabolical plans of the super-villain, only it doesn’t feel like that when you’re watching it. It feels like a well judged story about a traumatised young man, struggling to come terms with his parents murder, and his place in the world.
Luckily for him, his family are billionaires and his butler is Alfred, or more importantly, Michael Caine! There are of course a whole host of contrivances to explain how Batman’s image was forged, how the Batcave was created and where the Batmobile came from, but no-one’s suggesting that this a documentary. This is a more grounded and psychological approach to the story of a nutcase who dressed up like a bat and fights crime without a single superpower to his aid.
But it’s how Nolan brings all this together that works so well. He addresses things so subtly that you can end up missing them if you blink, or at least fail to see them coming. Wayne is turned into a flamboyant excentric to maintain a distance from his friends, if he even has any. The Batcave never ends up looking how we’d expect either, but it is full of bats if that helps and he does park his car there.
It is not until The Dark Knight that we see a Batcave of sorts and that isn’t even in the grounds of Wayne Manor. So, the direction, conception and writing are great, what about the casting? Christian Bale is Wayne/Batman for me, though the animatistic tone to his voice maybe a little overdone, but I do get it. Katie Holmes is the weakest link and am glad that she was recast for the sequel. The rest of the players are first-rate and this may well be on of the best casts ever assembled for a single film in my opinion.
Gary Oldman, so understated as Lt. Gordon, Caine as Alfred is perfect; Liam Neeson is on top form, which he isn’t always, let’s face it and Morgan Freeman, like Oldman and Caine can seemingly do no wrong. Then there’s Hans Zimmer‘s collaboration with James Newton Howard for the score which is one of Zimmer’s best. Howard is an able composer and he clearly provided many of the excellent emotional riffs, but it was Zimmer who brought this together with his dominant, strident style, colossal beats and pacing.
The look and sound of this film sets it apart from so many of its brethren. Batman Begins is a truly original, relentless and groundbreaking movie that is the best of the comic book movies by a mile, but not necessarily the best comic book adaptation. Spider-man or Watchmen for example, may qualify for the fact that they more literally reflect their respective sources but Nolan’s masterpiece is a blueprint as to how film should tackle such adaptations.
And yes, that’s right; Batman Begins is a masterpiece if ever there was one, though a slightly lesser one in comparison to its own sequel, The Dark Knight which may have completely rewritten the handbook.
Justin Patchett (42 KP) rated The Trump Prophecy (2018) in Movies
Mar 9, 2019 (Updated Mar 24, 2019)
My prophetic vision of how bad it could get
Contains spoilers, click to show
Part of my bill-paying job is managing our store’s DVD section. This past Tuesday, I opened our new release boxes to find a number of copies of a movie called "The Trump Prophecy." I got physically ill. Not ill enough to go home, but I could feel my stomach turn. It wasn’t because I was holding in my hands a movie about Donald Trump, though, because I can make it through many a title about the Bedswerver-in-Chief. There’s something worse: Associating support of him with Christian faith.
Now, ordinarily, I do movie reviews. That’s where I have to watch a movie, first, before writing about it. This time, though, I feel obligated to attempt my own sort of prophecy and write a review of a movie before I see it. I'll take a bit of research on the subject of the film, but until the final paragraph, I'm not actually going to watch this film. Here goes nothing.
"The Trump Prophecy" follows a self-proclaimed prophet, Mark Taylor, as he and a pseudo-publicist, Mary Colbert, spread the word of his vision: That Trump will become President of the United States. They lead a prayer movement to try to see it through, and lo and behold, it works. Sort of. You see, Taylor first put pen to paper to write out his vision in April of 2011, stating that while “they will spend billions to keep this president in,” “the next election will be a clean sweep for the man [Trump] I have chosen.” Clearly, this can only refer to the 2012 election, the very next presidential election in which Barack Obama would end up successfully keeping the presidency for one more term. An election in which Donald Trump did not even run. With that in mind, Taylor’s self-glorification film glosses over the fact that he was completely wrong about that prophecy out of necessity, instead focusing on his rehash of the prophecy going into 2016.
This movie lazily creeps into both the political propaganda and faith-based film genres. Faith-based films generally serve as evangelistic tools. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as its characters are already faithful Christians prior to the events of the film, providing no real evangelistic moments for its unsaved audience. It's almost like they know nobody is coming to this film for that. Political propaganda films, on the other hand, intend to indoctrinate in a certain belief. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as well. In fact, it has to actively avoid political discussion at all. Could you imagine a movie like this having to make a failing attempt to reconcile Christian faith against supporting Donald Trump?
The cinematography looks like it was shot as a bootleg of "The Room." The leads act with a flatness on par with their cardboard cutouts. Its lone redeeming quality is not tricking you into anything other than what it is: A schlocky puff piece intended to associate Christianity with support of the President, as Trump was God’s chosen man. Allegedly.
Get past its worst cinematic qualities and you’re left with even more problems. "The Trump Prophecy" insults its target audience by minimizing God. It suggests God can't enact his will unless people pray for the things He reveals to them as visions of the future. It paradoxically says God is either not omnipotent to make Trump president, not omniscient to know whether or not Trump would be made president, or both. It also suggests gullibility being the key to godliness, urging the viewer not to question the source of a grammatically incorrect prophecy. (Seriously. Taylor confuses the homophones “waste” and “waist” in his 2011 "Commander in Chief" prophecy). This call to gullibility is precisely why Jerry Falwell Jr.'s Liberty University got itself involved in this mess. If you weren’t a fan of Trump before, you should be one because God said so. To a provably false prophet.
Which leads me to the point where I actually have to subject myself to this nonsense and tell you just how right I was about it.
And dear gosh, was I right. In fact, it’s stranger than I might have though. Remember how I mentioned Taylor’s false prophecy? The opening narration directly quotes from it, giving you the chance, if you haven’t already looked into it, to see exactly where he went from potential prophet to false prophet. And if you missed it the first time, you'll have it repeated twice more. Finally, I'll admit the fault to my prophetic review: Cinematically, "The Trump Prophecy" is closer to a bootleg of a movie produced by The Asylum, but Asylum films are actually enjoyable. But as a bonus, though, combine it with the special effects work of "Birdemic." The film "ends" with an embedded music video and a series of so-called reflective conversations--monologues by demagogues. I can't remember much about these because I had already tuned out. The only fairness I'll give is that "The Trump Prophecy" may be unintentionally hilarious on occasion, but it’s mostly cringe-worthy. The biggest cringe, though is when you realize how many people actually believe this film as fact.
Now, ordinarily, I do movie reviews. That’s where I have to watch a movie, first, before writing about it. This time, though, I feel obligated to attempt my own sort of prophecy and write a review of a movie before I see it. I'll take a bit of research on the subject of the film, but until the final paragraph, I'm not actually going to watch this film. Here goes nothing.
"The Trump Prophecy" follows a self-proclaimed prophet, Mark Taylor, as he and a pseudo-publicist, Mary Colbert, spread the word of his vision: That Trump will become President of the United States. They lead a prayer movement to try to see it through, and lo and behold, it works. Sort of. You see, Taylor first put pen to paper to write out his vision in April of 2011, stating that while “they will spend billions to keep this president in,” “the next election will be a clean sweep for the man [Trump] I have chosen.” Clearly, this can only refer to the 2012 election, the very next presidential election in which Barack Obama would end up successfully keeping the presidency for one more term. An election in which Donald Trump did not even run. With that in mind, Taylor’s self-glorification film glosses over the fact that he was completely wrong about that prophecy out of necessity, instead focusing on his rehash of the prophecy going into 2016.
This movie lazily creeps into both the political propaganda and faith-based film genres. Faith-based films generally serve as evangelistic tools. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as its characters are already faithful Christians prior to the events of the film, providing no real evangelistic moments for its unsaved audience. It's almost like they know nobody is coming to this film for that. Political propaganda films, on the other hand, intend to indoctrinate in a certain belief. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as well. In fact, it has to actively avoid political discussion at all. Could you imagine a movie like this having to make a failing attempt to reconcile Christian faith against supporting Donald Trump?
The cinematography looks like it was shot as a bootleg of "The Room." The leads act with a flatness on par with their cardboard cutouts. Its lone redeeming quality is not tricking you into anything other than what it is: A schlocky puff piece intended to associate Christianity with support of the President, as Trump was God’s chosen man. Allegedly.
Get past its worst cinematic qualities and you’re left with even more problems. "The Trump Prophecy" insults its target audience by minimizing God. It suggests God can't enact his will unless people pray for the things He reveals to them as visions of the future. It paradoxically says God is either not omnipotent to make Trump president, not omniscient to know whether or not Trump would be made president, or both. It also suggests gullibility being the key to godliness, urging the viewer not to question the source of a grammatically incorrect prophecy. (Seriously. Taylor confuses the homophones “waste” and “waist” in his 2011 "Commander in Chief" prophecy). This call to gullibility is precisely why Jerry Falwell Jr.'s Liberty University got itself involved in this mess. If you weren’t a fan of Trump before, you should be one because God said so. To a provably false prophet.
Which leads me to the point where I actually have to subject myself to this nonsense and tell you just how right I was about it.
And dear gosh, was I right. In fact, it’s stranger than I might have though. Remember how I mentioned Taylor’s false prophecy? The opening narration directly quotes from it, giving you the chance, if you haven’t already looked into it, to see exactly where he went from potential prophet to false prophet. And if you missed it the first time, you'll have it repeated twice more. Finally, I'll admit the fault to my prophetic review: Cinematically, "The Trump Prophecy" is closer to a bootleg of a movie produced by The Asylum, but Asylum films are actually enjoyable. But as a bonus, though, combine it with the special effects work of "Birdemic." The film "ends" with an embedded music video and a series of so-called reflective conversations--monologues by demagogues. I can't remember much about these because I had already tuned out. The only fairness I'll give is that "The Trump Prophecy" may be unintentionally hilarious on occasion, but it’s mostly cringe-worthy. The biggest cringe, though is when you realize how many people actually believe this film as fact.
Mark Jaye (65 KP) rated Avengers: Infinity War (2018) in Movies
May 12, 2019
To Infinity....and Beyond!
Contains spoilers, click to show
Perhaps it's the eternal child in me, the three year old boy who developed a passion for superheroes after first seeing the 1966 Batman movie in the cinema (re-run of course, this was the 70's!), but this is without doubt the best film I have ever seen! Running at around 2 hours and 20 minutes in length (that's prior to the end credits mind you!) this movie brings together plot strands and characters from the Marvel Cinematic Universe's 10 year tapestry in what I will only describe as an epic thrill-ride.
I'm sure if you're reading this you know the plot. Thanos - the granite jawed world killer from the planet Titan, is rounding up the 6 all powerful infinity stones with which he plans to restore the balance of the universe through essentially wiping out 50% of everything. All that stands in his way are The Avengers, the Guardians of the Galaxy, Doctor Strange, Spiderman, Black Panther, and probably a few I've forgotten to mention! And that's pretty much the story.
We pick things up directly from the mid credits scene of Thor: Ragnarok where the refugee Asgardians, Bruce Banner, and Loki encountered a spaceship of epic proportions. We all knew it at the time... Thanos! Within the first five minutes or so we already have our first casualties at the hands of the purple behemoth which sets the tone for what follows. In possession of two of the stones Thanos dispatches his 'children' - the Black Order, to Earth to retrieve the Mind and Time stones whilst he tracks down the remaining ones. At quite a quick pace our heroes are introduced into the chaos and by employing this structure the writers ably break down the ensemble into smaller manageable groups. Stark, Peter Parker, and Doctor Strange are hurled into the vastness of Space where they encounter Peter Quill and some of his merry misfits, Thor and some of the other Guardians go off in search off forging a weapon to defeat Thanos, and Rogers, Romanoff, Wilson, Rhodes and Maximoff take Vision to Wakanda in order to try and separate the Mind Stone from him with the aid of T'Challa, Shuri and Okaye. Gamora finds herself the prisoner of her adoptive father - a storyline that gives both Brolin and Saldana a chance to really show their worth. Those are effectively the four story strands at play and each is a joy in its own right.
Each character stays true to form with Hemsworth taking the character along he rediscovered in 'Ragnarok' - albeit with some added darkness from the movie's opening moments. Chris Pratt is sheer joy as Quill/Starlord and his interplay with Stark and Hemsworth is a joy to behold. Tom Holland gets one of the best lines when responding to a question from Quill regarding a certain Kevin Bacon movie! Top marks also go to the man who launched this universe a decade ago as Iron Man - yes, Robert Downey Jr knocks it out of the park as a Tony Stark far removed from that we encountered back in the first movie of the MCU. His performance at the climax is simply first rate.
With such a large cast there are characters who don't get as much to do as others although everyone get's a 'moment or two' amongst proceedings. Those that particularly stand out, however, are Robert Downey Jr's Iron Man (reiterating my earlier comments), Chris Hemsworth as Thor (likewise), Zoe Saldana as Gamora (ditto), Chris Pratt as Starlord/Peter Quill (and again), Paul Bettany as Vision and Elisabeth Olsen as Wanda/Scarlet Witch. Surprisingly, Chris Evans doesn't seem to get much to do other than play an active role in a number of excellent battle sequences, although his introduction into the movie along with Black Widow and Falcon as they turn up in Scotland to save the day for Vision and Wanda Maximoff from the Black Order was a personal fist thumping the air moment!
There's simply so much to talk about and I'll stop myself there. If, like myself, you just can't avoid spoilers then chances are you know what happens in this movie by now...including that ending!!
Thanos is the perfect villain, fantastically realised, and given real motivation for his actions - the guy thinks he's showing mercy to the universe! I wouldn't agree that this is his movie as the film-makers have repeatedly stated however he is the central cog that keeps things turning.~Josh Brolin does an exceptional job in bringing Thanos to life. Given the feedback and reaction to Steppenwolf in the DCEU there could have been obvious concerns around another CGI villain. Fear not, the technology is exceptional and Brolin's features are evident 100% making Thanos a living creation.
Alan Silvestri's score is the perfect fit and really compliments the action unfolding on the screen. During the aforementioned fist in the air moment as Steve Rogers, Black Widow, and Falcon make their first appearance to take on the Black Order, Silvestri's 'Avengers' theme kicks in creating pure movie magic.
Simply put, this movie is pure perfection.
I'm sure if you're reading this you know the plot. Thanos - the granite jawed world killer from the planet Titan, is rounding up the 6 all powerful infinity stones with which he plans to restore the balance of the universe through essentially wiping out 50% of everything. All that stands in his way are The Avengers, the Guardians of the Galaxy, Doctor Strange, Spiderman, Black Panther, and probably a few I've forgotten to mention! And that's pretty much the story.
We pick things up directly from the mid credits scene of Thor: Ragnarok where the refugee Asgardians, Bruce Banner, and Loki encountered a spaceship of epic proportions. We all knew it at the time... Thanos! Within the first five minutes or so we already have our first casualties at the hands of the purple behemoth which sets the tone for what follows. In possession of two of the stones Thanos dispatches his 'children' - the Black Order, to Earth to retrieve the Mind and Time stones whilst he tracks down the remaining ones. At quite a quick pace our heroes are introduced into the chaos and by employing this structure the writers ably break down the ensemble into smaller manageable groups. Stark, Peter Parker, and Doctor Strange are hurled into the vastness of Space where they encounter Peter Quill and some of his merry misfits, Thor and some of the other Guardians go off in search off forging a weapon to defeat Thanos, and Rogers, Romanoff, Wilson, Rhodes and Maximoff take Vision to Wakanda in order to try and separate the Mind Stone from him with the aid of T'Challa, Shuri and Okaye. Gamora finds herself the prisoner of her adoptive father - a storyline that gives both Brolin and Saldana a chance to really show their worth. Those are effectively the four story strands at play and each is a joy in its own right.
Each character stays true to form with Hemsworth taking the character along he rediscovered in 'Ragnarok' - albeit with some added darkness from the movie's opening moments. Chris Pratt is sheer joy as Quill/Starlord and his interplay with Stark and Hemsworth is a joy to behold. Tom Holland gets one of the best lines when responding to a question from Quill regarding a certain Kevin Bacon movie! Top marks also go to the man who launched this universe a decade ago as Iron Man - yes, Robert Downey Jr knocks it out of the park as a Tony Stark far removed from that we encountered back in the first movie of the MCU. His performance at the climax is simply first rate.
With such a large cast there are characters who don't get as much to do as others although everyone get's a 'moment or two' amongst proceedings. Those that particularly stand out, however, are Robert Downey Jr's Iron Man (reiterating my earlier comments), Chris Hemsworth as Thor (likewise), Zoe Saldana as Gamora (ditto), Chris Pratt as Starlord/Peter Quill (and again), Paul Bettany as Vision and Elisabeth Olsen as Wanda/Scarlet Witch. Surprisingly, Chris Evans doesn't seem to get much to do other than play an active role in a number of excellent battle sequences, although his introduction into the movie along with Black Widow and Falcon as they turn up in Scotland to save the day for Vision and Wanda Maximoff from the Black Order was a personal fist thumping the air moment!
There's simply so much to talk about and I'll stop myself there. If, like myself, you just can't avoid spoilers then chances are you know what happens in this movie by now...including that ending!!
Thanos is the perfect villain, fantastically realised, and given real motivation for his actions - the guy thinks he's showing mercy to the universe! I wouldn't agree that this is his movie as the film-makers have repeatedly stated however he is the central cog that keeps things turning.~Josh Brolin does an exceptional job in bringing Thanos to life. Given the feedback and reaction to Steppenwolf in the DCEU there could have been obvious concerns around another CGI villain. Fear not, the technology is exceptional and Brolin's features are evident 100% making Thanos a living creation.
Alan Silvestri's score is the perfect fit and really compliments the action unfolding on the screen. During the aforementioned fist in the air moment as Steve Rogers, Black Widow, and Falcon make their first appearance to take on the Black Order, Silvestri's 'Avengers' theme kicks in creating pure movie magic.
Simply put, this movie is pure perfection.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Psycho (1960) in Movies
Oct 29, 2018
An all-time great performance by Anthony Perkins
I'm sure all of you have (at least) heard of the 1960 Alfred Hitchcock film, PSYCHO. And I'm sure most of you have seen (at least in part) the famous "shower scene". But when was the last time you really sat down and watched this film? It had been awhile for me and I walked away with the following impression:
PSYCHO is not all that scary, but it is suspenseful as heck with strong Direction by the "Master of Suspense" and very strong performances anchoring the front and back end of the film.
PSYCHO was billed when it came out as a "Janet Leigh Film". So, to give this review context, let's look at who Janet Leigh was at the time. Before shooting PSYCHO, Leigh was generally cast as the ingenue and/or love interest in mainstream fair such as LITTLE WOMEN, ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD and HOUDINI (a modern "comp" to her might be someone like Anne Hathaway before she started doing "edgier" work). Leigh did show that there was more to her than just being an ingenue when she played the morally ambiguous wife of Charlton Heston's character in Orson Welles' TOUCH OF EVIL. This film (probably) gave Hitchcock the idea to cast Leigh in PSYCHO.
When 1960's audiences first saw Leigh on screen in PSYCHO, I'm sure that most of them were shocked for, instead of being the pure and wholesome ingenue and wife, she plays the entire first scene in a bra and slip. Her character, Marion Crane, is not morally ambiguous, she is morally corrupt - and when Leigh's character has a chance to act on her moral corruptness, she jumps at the chance. The rest of the first half of this film is Leigh trying to get away with her "crime". She is quite good in this part of the film and was nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress (deservedly so).
And then...Anthony Perkins shows up.
We are about 45 minutes into the 1 hour and 49 minute film when Perkins' Norman Bates first appears on screen and an interesting thing happened - I couldn't take my eyes off of him. I was enjoying Leigh's performance but instantly pushed her aside (and to the background) when Perkins shows up. Without giving plot away, let me say that there is much, much going behind Norman's eyes and the performance by Perkins strongly suggests this, without going over-the-top or being melodramatic. It is a perfect blend of actor, character and performance and I was shocked that he was not even NOMINATED for an Oscar (Peter Ustinov would win for SPARTACUS). Perkins performance is one of the all-time greats with one of the most interesting and unusual characters - and portrayals - of all time.
Much of the credit for Perkins' and Leigh's strong performances have to go to Director Hitchcock who was at the height of his Directing powers (and power). From the "get go", you can feel the Director's hand in this film, building suspense from scene to scene and shot to shot, first with Leigh's character and, later, with Perkins. Both characters are trying to get away with something and Hitchcock pulls his camera in close to make a point - from a distance all seems good, but when you get up close, you can tell that things are very bad, indeed.
The filming of the famous "shower scene" is well documented and is a Master Class in film and editing. It is worth the price of admission on it's own - as is a scene on a staircase with Private Detective Arbogast, played by Martin Balsam. Hitchcock chooses to heighten the realism in this scene on the staircase by going a more esoteric route (rather than traditional filming of the events) and, one can argue, it doesn't belong in this film. Until, that is, you think about it and then it makes great sense and absolutely, positively has to be in this film in that way.
Another aspect of this film that begs to be mentioned is the Film Score by the great Bernard Herrmann - Hitchcock's regular collaborator. The music in this film punctuates the action on the screen - from the persistent beat and pacing of the opening credits music - driving the audience forward into the action - that does not let go, reaching it's peak and crescendo in the shower scene and then floating down gently like an animal catching it's breath after great activity.
Does the entire film hold up almost 60 years later? Almost...but not quite. Most annoying to me was the "wrap-up" scene at the end where a character spells out everything for the audience. As if we are not smart enough to "get it" - and perhaps the audiences in 1960 weren't.
But that is a quibble for a film that is a classic and is one that, if you have not seen (or seen for awhile), begs to be seen. Check out this film, not for the scares, but rather, the suspense that is generated by Hitchcock and his performers throughout. A GREAT entree into the world of Alfred Hitchcock films.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
PSYCHO is not all that scary, but it is suspenseful as heck with strong Direction by the "Master of Suspense" and very strong performances anchoring the front and back end of the film.
PSYCHO was billed when it came out as a "Janet Leigh Film". So, to give this review context, let's look at who Janet Leigh was at the time. Before shooting PSYCHO, Leigh was generally cast as the ingenue and/or love interest in mainstream fair such as LITTLE WOMEN, ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD and HOUDINI (a modern "comp" to her might be someone like Anne Hathaway before she started doing "edgier" work). Leigh did show that there was more to her than just being an ingenue when she played the morally ambiguous wife of Charlton Heston's character in Orson Welles' TOUCH OF EVIL. This film (probably) gave Hitchcock the idea to cast Leigh in PSYCHO.
When 1960's audiences first saw Leigh on screen in PSYCHO, I'm sure that most of them were shocked for, instead of being the pure and wholesome ingenue and wife, she plays the entire first scene in a bra and slip. Her character, Marion Crane, is not morally ambiguous, she is morally corrupt - and when Leigh's character has a chance to act on her moral corruptness, she jumps at the chance. The rest of the first half of this film is Leigh trying to get away with her "crime". She is quite good in this part of the film and was nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress (deservedly so).
And then...Anthony Perkins shows up.
We are about 45 minutes into the 1 hour and 49 minute film when Perkins' Norman Bates first appears on screen and an interesting thing happened - I couldn't take my eyes off of him. I was enjoying Leigh's performance but instantly pushed her aside (and to the background) when Perkins shows up. Without giving plot away, let me say that there is much, much going behind Norman's eyes and the performance by Perkins strongly suggests this, without going over-the-top or being melodramatic. It is a perfect blend of actor, character and performance and I was shocked that he was not even NOMINATED for an Oscar (Peter Ustinov would win for SPARTACUS). Perkins performance is one of the all-time greats with one of the most interesting and unusual characters - and portrayals - of all time.
Much of the credit for Perkins' and Leigh's strong performances have to go to Director Hitchcock who was at the height of his Directing powers (and power). From the "get go", you can feel the Director's hand in this film, building suspense from scene to scene and shot to shot, first with Leigh's character and, later, with Perkins. Both characters are trying to get away with something and Hitchcock pulls his camera in close to make a point - from a distance all seems good, but when you get up close, you can tell that things are very bad, indeed.
The filming of the famous "shower scene" is well documented and is a Master Class in film and editing. It is worth the price of admission on it's own - as is a scene on a staircase with Private Detective Arbogast, played by Martin Balsam. Hitchcock chooses to heighten the realism in this scene on the staircase by going a more esoteric route (rather than traditional filming of the events) and, one can argue, it doesn't belong in this film. Until, that is, you think about it and then it makes great sense and absolutely, positively has to be in this film in that way.
Another aspect of this film that begs to be mentioned is the Film Score by the great Bernard Herrmann - Hitchcock's regular collaborator. The music in this film punctuates the action on the screen - from the persistent beat and pacing of the opening credits music - driving the audience forward into the action - that does not let go, reaching it's peak and crescendo in the shower scene and then floating down gently like an animal catching it's breath after great activity.
Does the entire film hold up almost 60 years later? Almost...but not quite. Most annoying to me was the "wrap-up" scene at the end where a character spells out everything for the audience. As if we are not smart enough to "get it" - and perhaps the audiences in 1960 weren't.
But that is a quibble for a film that is a classic and is one that, if you have not seen (or seen for awhile), begs to be seen. Check out this film, not for the scares, but rather, the suspense that is generated by Hitchcock and his performers throughout. A GREAT entree into the world of Alfred Hitchcock films.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)