Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Potter goes International
It’s almost unbearable to think that Harry Potter & the Philosopher’s Stone was released…wait for it… 15 years ago this very week. I know, I can’t believe it too, and what’s even more depressing is that the eight film behemoth concluded over five years ago.
Since then, Potter aficionados have been calling on writer J.K. Rowling to release new material in the hope of creating more silver screen magic. Well, prayers were answered with the announcement of a film adaptation of her short book, Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them. The day is finally here, but what is the finished product like?
The year is 1926, and Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) has just completed a global excursion to find and document an extraordinary array of magical creatures. Arriving in New York for a brief stopover, he might have come and gone without incident, were it not for a No-Maj (American for Muggle) named Jacob (Dan Fogler), a misplaced magical case, and the escape of some of Newt’s fantastic beasts, which could spell trouble for both the wizarding and No-Maj worlds.
David Yates returns to the franchise after directing the final four instalments in the Harry Potter saga and manages to craft a film that’ll no doubt please fans and newcomers, but lacks the subtle touches that made its British counterparts so enthralling for 10 years.
The cast is on point however, despite Eddie Redmayne’s slightly over-the-top performance as Mr. Scamander. Ron Perlman, Jon Voight and Ezra Miller all lend themselves to the film in some form with Colin Farrell providing an excellent portrayal, though Dan Fogler’s muggle Jacob steals the show by a country mile.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is very good with 1920’s New York looking incredibly realistic and the sweeping shots of the city are beautifully juxtaposed with more intimate basement settings.
Unfortunately, the special effects occasionally let the film down. For a franchise start-up (we have four more films to look forward to) the consistency just isn’t there and Redmayne’s interactions with his unique beasts feel rough and disappointingly unfinished.
There’s also a bit of an issue with Fantastic Beasts’ pacing, something that the Potter films were also guilty of from time to time. The first hour is unacceptably slow, the plot continuously dragging its heels as it sets up the side story to Redmayne’s creature feature.
Speaking of which, that second scenario really does pull things together nicely and takes the flick into much darker territory than expected. It’s a fascinating third act that really makes up for the rather dull first. The twists and turns that the script takes the audience on making it genuinely exciting.
Overall, what made the Harry Potter movies a success was the chemistry between each and every member of the cast. Fantastic Beasts certainly has a great cast individually, but the characters lack chemistry when on screen together. Couple this with some poor special effects plus a dull first hour and what we’re left with is a reasonable start to a new franchise, but not a magical one.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/11/19/potter-goes-international-fantastic-beasts-and-where-to-find-them-review/
Since then, Potter aficionados have been calling on writer J.K. Rowling to release new material in the hope of creating more silver screen magic. Well, prayers were answered with the announcement of a film adaptation of her short book, Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them. The day is finally here, but what is the finished product like?
The year is 1926, and Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) has just completed a global excursion to find and document an extraordinary array of magical creatures. Arriving in New York for a brief stopover, he might have come and gone without incident, were it not for a No-Maj (American for Muggle) named Jacob (Dan Fogler), a misplaced magical case, and the escape of some of Newt’s fantastic beasts, which could spell trouble for both the wizarding and No-Maj worlds.
David Yates returns to the franchise after directing the final four instalments in the Harry Potter saga and manages to craft a film that’ll no doubt please fans and newcomers, but lacks the subtle touches that made its British counterparts so enthralling for 10 years.
The cast is on point however, despite Eddie Redmayne’s slightly over-the-top performance as Mr. Scamander. Ron Perlman, Jon Voight and Ezra Miller all lend themselves to the film in some form with Colin Farrell providing an excellent portrayal, though Dan Fogler’s muggle Jacob steals the show by a country mile.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is very good with 1920’s New York looking incredibly realistic and the sweeping shots of the city are beautifully juxtaposed with more intimate basement settings.
Unfortunately, the special effects occasionally let the film down. For a franchise start-up (we have four more films to look forward to) the consistency just isn’t there and Redmayne’s interactions with his unique beasts feel rough and disappointingly unfinished.
There’s also a bit of an issue with Fantastic Beasts’ pacing, something that the Potter films were also guilty of from time to time. The first hour is unacceptably slow, the plot continuously dragging its heels as it sets up the side story to Redmayne’s creature feature.
Speaking of which, that second scenario really does pull things together nicely and takes the flick into much darker territory than expected. It’s a fascinating third act that really makes up for the rather dull first. The twists and turns that the script takes the audience on making it genuinely exciting.
Overall, what made the Harry Potter movies a success was the chemistry between each and every member of the cast. Fantastic Beasts certainly has a great cast individually, but the characters lack chemistry when on screen together. Couple this with some poor special effects plus a dull first hour and what we’re left with is a reasonable start to a new franchise, but not a magical one.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/11/19/potter-goes-international-fantastic-beasts-and-where-to-find-them-review/
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Cuckoo Song in Books
Dec 14, 2018
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
Frances Hardinge’s <i>Cuckoo Song</i> is a historical, horror story for children. Six years have past since the end of the First World War, a war in which the Crescent family lost their eldest child. Eleven-year-old Theresa Crescent “Triss” lives with her parents and nine year old sister, Penelope “Pen” in the fictional town of Ellchester, England. Since losing Sebastian, Triss has become a very frail child and so it is no surprise to her parents that she develops an awful fever after falling into a millpond. The question, though, is how she came to be in the pond to begin with and why Pen is so scared of her?
Things become even more mystifying when Triss sees dolls start to move, finds leaves on her pillow, and is constantly ravenously hungry. Her parents begin to consider that Triss is suffering from some form of mental illness, however, Pen, the bad-tempered child, is adamant that that is not the case. She claims that Triss is a fake.
The horrible realization is that perhaps Triss is not Triss at all. This discovery leads the tale into paranormal territory with the introduction of unique new creatures: Besiders.
Cuckoo Song is not just an entertaining, fantastical story; it also deals with themes of family and personal emotion. Piers and Celeste Crescent are examples of parents whose behaviour and response to the death of a child impact on their remaining children. Triss becomes a child they want to protect and save leaving Pen to become an attention-seeking troublemaker.
As the story progresses, Triss and Pen’s relationship develops, or rather Pen and Not-Triss’, into something more recognizable and sisterly. Through their strength and newfound love for each other, they fight to get the happy ending they deserve. And through it all Triss discovers that just because someone calls you a monster, it does not mean that you are a monster.
The 1920’s setting did not feel quite accurate. At times it felt as though the story could have been set today. This, however, was not a major issue as, apart from Sebastian’s death during WW1, the time period was not a key aspect of the plot.
Initially the children, particularly Pen, were written in a way that made them seem older than Hardinge intended them to be, although by the end it is clear that they are fairly young. This is shown in the way that Pen begins to become attached to, and slightly more dependent, on Triss.
It is difficult to say who the target audience of <i>Cuckoo Song</i> is. The protagonist is eleven but the writing may be a little difficult for some children, on the other hand it cannot exactly be classed as Young Adult fiction since the characters are not even in their teens.
Overall, <i>Cuckoo Song</i> is an exciting, fast paced, fairy tale-like story with original characters. It is not scary and is fun to read; there is nothing to stop older readers from enjoying it too!
Frances Hardinge’s <i>Cuckoo Song</i> is a historical, horror story for children. Six years have past since the end of the First World War, a war in which the Crescent family lost their eldest child. Eleven-year-old Theresa Crescent “Triss” lives with her parents and nine year old sister, Penelope “Pen” in the fictional town of Ellchester, England. Since losing Sebastian, Triss has become a very frail child and so it is no surprise to her parents that she develops an awful fever after falling into a millpond. The question, though, is how she came to be in the pond to begin with and why Pen is so scared of her?
Things become even more mystifying when Triss sees dolls start to move, finds leaves on her pillow, and is constantly ravenously hungry. Her parents begin to consider that Triss is suffering from some form of mental illness, however, Pen, the bad-tempered child, is adamant that that is not the case. She claims that Triss is a fake.
The horrible realization is that perhaps Triss is not Triss at all. This discovery leads the tale into paranormal territory with the introduction of unique new creatures: Besiders.
Cuckoo Song is not just an entertaining, fantastical story; it also deals with themes of family and personal emotion. Piers and Celeste Crescent are examples of parents whose behaviour and response to the death of a child impact on their remaining children. Triss becomes a child they want to protect and save leaving Pen to become an attention-seeking troublemaker.
As the story progresses, Triss and Pen’s relationship develops, or rather Pen and Not-Triss’, into something more recognizable and sisterly. Through their strength and newfound love for each other, they fight to get the happy ending they deserve. And through it all Triss discovers that just because someone calls you a monster, it does not mean that you are a monster.
The 1920’s setting did not feel quite accurate. At times it felt as though the story could have been set today. This, however, was not a major issue as, apart from Sebastian’s death during WW1, the time period was not a key aspect of the plot.
Initially the children, particularly Pen, were written in a way that made them seem older than Hardinge intended them to be, although by the end it is clear that they are fairly young. This is shown in the way that Pen begins to become attached to, and slightly more dependent, on Triss.
It is difficult to say who the target audience of <i>Cuckoo Song</i> is. The protagonist is eleven but the writing may be a little difficult for some children, on the other hand it cannot exactly be classed as Young Adult fiction since the characters are not even in their teens.
Overall, <i>Cuckoo Song</i> is an exciting, fast paced, fairy tale-like story with original characters. It is not scary and is fun to read; there is nothing to stop older readers from enjoying it too!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Power of the Dog (2021) in Movies
Dec 7, 2021
Deep and Layered
If the movie you are watching has a long shot of wheat blowing in the wind, then you are watching a character drama. If that same film also includes a 5 minute scene of someone braiding rope, then you have THE POWER OF THE DOG.
Written and Directed by Jane Campion (THE PIANO) and based on the best-selling novel by Thomas Savage, THE POWER OF THE DOG tells the tale of 2 brothers, talkative and charismatic Phil (Benedict Cumberbatch) and quiet and contemplative George (Jesse Plemons) who are tending their cattle ranch in Montana in the mid-1920’s. As horses give way to horseless carriages, George falls for a widow (Kirsten Dunst) who has an effeminate son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) and this relationship makes Phil face his own feelings - and a changing world.
In the hands of Campion, this film is a quiet, introspective look at how a hard-drinking, hard-living Cowboy deals with a changing world - and his own pent up emotions - and it works well. She weaves a fascinating story that takes its time unfurling it’s pages and the time that the audience takes in steeping themselves in the story and the characters is time well spent, indeed.
This is because the great Benedict Cumberbatch (TV’s SHERLOCK) is on-screen for 95% of the film as Phil and he commands the screen every moment that his presence is known. It is a bravura - though eerily quiet and introspective - performance by Cumberbatch. Campion and Cumberbatch create a memorable character that fills the screen not because he is wide or high or showy, but because he is deep and layered and the film spends most of its 2 hour and 6 minute running time peeling back the layers and digging deep into this character. It is an Oscar-worthy performance and is a shoo-in Oscar nominee and would not be surprising if Cumberbatch finally wins his Oscar for this role.
Plemons and Dunst (who played a couple in the first season of the TV series FARGO) are the catalyst that set the film - and the discoveries - in motion, but, though they are good, they have very little to do besides react to Cumberbatch’s characters’ moves.
Surprisingly, the character that does stand-out and the actor who does go toe-to-toe with Cumberbatch’s Phil is Peter, the son of Rose and played by Kodi Smit-McPhee (NIghtcrawler in X-MEN:APOCALYPSE) who is (at first) befriended by Phil as a joke and becomes closer and closer to him as the film progresses. It is through Peter that we dig through the layers of Phil - and it is a fascinating journey.
This is a gorgeous film to look at - Cinematographer Ari Wegner (THE GIRLFRIEND EXPERIENCE) is a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination as well - and this is good, because Phil (and the audience) spend long stretches looking out in the wilderness, contemplating the world - and change.
Not the fastest moving film you will ever encounter, but if you are in the mood for this sort of thing and can get caught up with discovering the layers of Phil, then you will be rewarded with a layered and deep experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Written and Directed by Jane Campion (THE PIANO) and based on the best-selling novel by Thomas Savage, THE POWER OF THE DOG tells the tale of 2 brothers, talkative and charismatic Phil (Benedict Cumberbatch) and quiet and contemplative George (Jesse Plemons) who are tending their cattle ranch in Montana in the mid-1920’s. As horses give way to horseless carriages, George falls for a widow (Kirsten Dunst) who has an effeminate son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) and this relationship makes Phil face his own feelings - and a changing world.
In the hands of Campion, this film is a quiet, introspective look at how a hard-drinking, hard-living Cowboy deals with a changing world - and his own pent up emotions - and it works well. She weaves a fascinating story that takes its time unfurling it’s pages and the time that the audience takes in steeping themselves in the story and the characters is time well spent, indeed.
This is because the great Benedict Cumberbatch (TV’s SHERLOCK) is on-screen for 95% of the film as Phil and he commands the screen every moment that his presence is known. It is a bravura - though eerily quiet and introspective - performance by Cumberbatch. Campion and Cumberbatch create a memorable character that fills the screen not because he is wide or high or showy, but because he is deep and layered and the film spends most of its 2 hour and 6 minute running time peeling back the layers and digging deep into this character. It is an Oscar-worthy performance and is a shoo-in Oscar nominee and would not be surprising if Cumberbatch finally wins his Oscar for this role.
Plemons and Dunst (who played a couple in the first season of the TV series FARGO) are the catalyst that set the film - and the discoveries - in motion, but, though they are good, they have very little to do besides react to Cumberbatch’s characters’ moves.
Surprisingly, the character that does stand-out and the actor who does go toe-to-toe with Cumberbatch’s Phil is Peter, the son of Rose and played by Kodi Smit-McPhee (NIghtcrawler in X-MEN:APOCALYPSE) who is (at first) befriended by Phil as a joke and becomes closer and closer to him as the film progresses. It is through Peter that we dig through the layers of Phil - and it is a fascinating journey.
This is a gorgeous film to look at - Cinematographer Ari Wegner (THE GIRLFRIEND EXPERIENCE) is a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination as well - and this is good, because Phil (and the audience) spend long stretches looking out in the wilderness, contemplating the world - and change.
Not the fastest moving film you will ever encounter, but if you are in the mood for this sort of thing and can get caught up with discovering the layers of Phil, then you will be rewarded with a layered and deep experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Becs (244 KP) rated The Crucible in Books
Oct 2, 2019
I absolutely love Arthur Miller and anything regarding witches/ the Salem Trials. So, the crucible for me is a five-star novel. Can we just take a moment to admire the writers of the 50’s and older as they don’t seem to be getting much hype lately? Like, literary classics are deemed school reads and not your typical everyday read. THIS NEEDS TO CHANGE.
Reading these in school and then giving them a reread five years after graduating, has shown a new light onto these novels. And has made me appreciate them more as a whole compared to when I read them in high school. If you haven’t read many literary classics, I recommend starting with something by Arthur Miller or George Orwell. Yes, they may be a bit hard to get into at first, but give it time. That’s the key when reading any book!
The Crucible by Arthur Miller
Genre: Literary Classic, Historical Fiction, Plays, Drama
Synopsis: “I believe that the reader will discover here the essential nature of one of the strangest and most awful chapters in human history,” Arthur Miller wrote of his classic play about the witch-hunts and trials in seventeenth-century Salem, Massachusetts. Based on historical people and real events, Miller’s drama is a searing portrait of a community engulfed by hysteria. In the rigid theocracy of Salem, rumors that women are practicing witchcraft galvanize the town’s most basic fears and suspicions; and when a young girl accuses Elizabeth Proctor of being a witch, self-righteous church leaders and townspeople insist that Elizabeth be brought to trial. The ruthlessness of the prosecutors and the eagerness of neighbor to testify against neighbor brilliantly illuminate the destructive power of socially sanctioned violence.
Written in 1953, The Crucible is a mirror Miller uses to reflect the anti-communist hysteria inspired by Senator Joseph McCarthy’s “witch-hunts” in the United States. Within the text itself, Miller contemplates the parallels, writing, “Political opposition… is given an inhumane overlay, which then justifies the abrogation of all normally applied customs of civilized behavior. A political policy is equated with moral right, and opposition to it with diabolical malevolence.”
WIth an introduction by Christopher Bigsby.
Audience/ Reading Level: High School +
Interests: Plays, Drama, Witches, the Salem Trials, Arthur Miller, Literary Classics.
Point of View: Third Person Omniscient
Difficulty Reading: With every literary classic, you run into the problem of the first 30% of the novel being a bore or hard to get into. The Crucible was only a bore in parts but taking the novel as a whole, it was a pretty easy read.
Promise: “I believe that the reader will discover here the essential nature of one of the strangest and most awful chapters in human history.”
Insights: The Crucible is based on true events and Arthur Miller has a way of explaining everything that was wrong with the way people lived. I.E. Woman did not have rights until the early 1920’s. This didn’t stop some countries/states to still not allow the woman to have rights. But taking The Crucible into perspective, the women that were charged with witchcraft were unable to explain themselves to the men. The men believed the accusers either because they were sleeping with them or because they were their family. Luckily, nowadays we don’t have this extreme of situations but it still does exist. The Crucible teaches all of its readers, young or old, many valuable lessons that are sometimes hard to witness. Plus, Miller correlates the events in the Crucible to the anti-communist McCarthyism of the 1950s.
Favorite Quotes: “I speak my own sins; I cannot judge another. I have no tongue for it.”
“Because it is my name! Because I cannot have another in my life! Because I lie and sign myself to lies! Because I am not worth the dust on the feet of them that hang! How may I live without my name? I have given you my soul; leave me my name!”
“You are pulling down heaven and raising up a whore”
What will you gain: A love for another literary classic and a love for Arthur Miller if you do not already love his writing. Plus, a great historical read.
Aesthetics: The witches, the trials, the way people take sides, I mean I can’t say much more without giving spoilers away. We wouldn’t want that, now would we?
“It is rare for people to be asked the question which puts them squarely in front of themselves”
Reading these in school and then giving them a reread five years after graduating, has shown a new light onto these novels. And has made me appreciate them more as a whole compared to when I read them in high school. If you haven’t read many literary classics, I recommend starting with something by Arthur Miller or George Orwell. Yes, they may be a bit hard to get into at first, but give it time. That’s the key when reading any book!
The Crucible by Arthur Miller
Genre: Literary Classic, Historical Fiction, Plays, Drama
Synopsis: “I believe that the reader will discover here the essential nature of one of the strangest and most awful chapters in human history,” Arthur Miller wrote of his classic play about the witch-hunts and trials in seventeenth-century Salem, Massachusetts. Based on historical people and real events, Miller’s drama is a searing portrait of a community engulfed by hysteria. In the rigid theocracy of Salem, rumors that women are practicing witchcraft galvanize the town’s most basic fears and suspicions; and when a young girl accuses Elizabeth Proctor of being a witch, self-righteous church leaders and townspeople insist that Elizabeth be brought to trial. The ruthlessness of the prosecutors and the eagerness of neighbor to testify against neighbor brilliantly illuminate the destructive power of socially sanctioned violence.
Written in 1953, The Crucible is a mirror Miller uses to reflect the anti-communist hysteria inspired by Senator Joseph McCarthy’s “witch-hunts” in the United States. Within the text itself, Miller contemplates the parallels, writing, “Political opposition… is given an inhumane overlay, which then justifies the abrogation of all normally applied customs of civilized behavior. A political policy is equated with moral right, and opposition to it with diabolical malevolence.”
WIth an introduction by Christopher Bigsby.
Audience/ Reading Level: High School +
Interests: Plays, Drama, Witches, the Salem Trials, Arthur Miller, Literary Classics.
Point of View: Third Person Omniscient
Difficulty Reading: With every literary classic, you run into the problem of the first 30% of the novel being a bore or hard to get into. The Crucible was only a bore in parts but taking the novel as a whole, it was a pretty easy read.
Promise: “I believe that the reader will discover here the essential nature of one of the strangest and most awful chapters in human history.”
Insights: The Crucible is based on true events and Arthur Miller has a way of explaining everything that was wrong with the way people lived. I.E. Woman did not have rights until the early 1920’s. This didn’t stop some countries/states to still not allow the woman to have rights. But taking The Crucible into perspective, the women that were charged with witchcraft were unable to explain themselves to the men. The men believed the accusers either because they were sleeping with them or because they were their family. Luckily, nowadays we don’t have this extreme of situations but it still does exist. The Crucible teaches all of its readers, young or old, many valuable lessons that are sometimes hard to witness. Plus, Miller correlates the events in the Crucible to the anti-communist McCarthyism of the 1950s.
Favorite Quotes: “I speak my own sins; I cannot judge another. I have no tongue for it.”
“Because it is my name! Because I cannot have another in my life! Because I lie and sign myself to lies! Because I am not worth the dust on the feet of them that hang! How may I live without my name? I have given you my soul; leave me my name!”
“You are pulling down heaven and raising up a whore”
What will you gain: A love for another literary classic and a love for Arthur Miller if you do not already love his writing. Plus, a great historical read.
Aesthetics: The witches, the trials, the way people take sides, I mean I can’t say much more without giving spoilers away. We wouldn’t want that, now would we?
“It is rare for people to be asked the question which puts them squarely in front of themselves”
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Cinderella Man (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In the late 1920’s Jim Braddock was a boxer with a future. After many wins, he was poised to take his place as one of the greatest boxers of his time. Things took a bad turn for Jim in 1929 when he first lost a 15 round decision to Tommy Loughran, and then lost everything in the Stock Market Crash.
In the new film Cinderella Man Academy Award winner Russell Crowe stars as Jim Braddock in one of the most satisfying films in recent memory. Down and almost out, Braddock struggles to provide for his wife Mae (Renee Zellweger), and his three children. A series of hand injuries has forced Jim to resort to fighting in pick up fights, as he is unable to find work as a laborer.
Things go from bad to worse for Jim when he breaks a bone in his hand and is unable to provide entertainment for those in a local boxing match which results in the suspension of his boxing license. With his electricity turned off in the dead of winter, and his children coughing from the effects of the cold, Jim is forced to hide his injury and seek work as a day laborer to get by.
As Jim and Mae debate sending the kids to her sister in order to better provide for them, a ray of hope arises when Jim’s old manger Joe Gould (Paul Giamatti), says he has arranged a fight with a $250 payday.
Since Jim’s hand has healed, he takes the fight seeing it as a chance to get caught up on his bills. Fate steps in when in a shocking turnaround; Jim wins the fight via knock out, and captures the imagination of the local sports community. Before long, Jim is racking up win after win and improving his lot in life as he prepares for an unexpected title shot against the devastating and unbeaten Max Baer (Craig Bierko).
The fact that Baer has killed two men in the ring is a cause of great stress for Jim and Mae as she worries for the safety of her husband while Jim sees the fight as his chance to provide some financial security for his family.
Anyone who has seen the trailer can be sure that the big fight will take place, and that the underdog will find himself in a battle against overwhelming odds, but what makes Cinderella Man such a captivating film is the captivating human drama that propels the film. There have been many boxing films ranging from “Rocky” to “Raging Bull”, that have depicted the graphic action of the ring, but few have reached the depths of human drama that this film does. Jim is not looking for glory, he is simply looking to provide for his family the best way that he is able be it in the ring or hauling cargo at the docks.
Crowe is riveting as he is able to convey his characters plight to the audience without making it seem forced or heavy handed. Where Crowe truly shines is his ability to mix the emotional sequences of the film with the athletic and action filled ring sequences and not lose any of his character. Far too often actors fail to convince in one aspect when they try to mix drama and action, but Crowe easily transitions between the demands of the role proving again that he is the most gifted actor in Hollywood. The steady direction of Ron Howard keeps the film moving at a crisp pace, without allowing the story to become mired in sentiment.
The only real issue I had with the film is that the talented Zellweger is not given enough to do, as beyond doting for and worry about her family, she is not given much to do aside from stand by while the action occurs around her.
That being said Cinderella Man, is a triumph of film making, and should be a forced to contend with come Oscar season.
In the new film Cinderella Man Academy Award winner Russell Crowe stars as Jim Braddock in one of the most satisfying films in recent memory. Down and almost out, Braddock struggles to provide for his wife Mae (Renee Zellweger), and his three children. A series of hand injuries has forced Jim to resort to fighting in pick up fights, as he is unable to find work as a laborer.
Things go from bad to worse for Jim when he breaks a bone in his hand and is unable to provide entertainment for those in a local boxing match which results in the suspension of his boxing license. With his electricity turned off in the dead of winter, and his children coughing from the effects of the cold, Jim is forced to hide his injury and seek work as a day laborer to get by.
As Jim and Mae debate sending the kids to her sister in order to better provide for them, a ray of hope arises when Jim’s old manger Joe Gould (Paul Giamatti), says he has arranged a fight with a $250 payday.
Since Jim’s hand has healed, he takes the fight seeing it as a chance to get caught up on his bills. Fate steps in when in a shocking turnaround; Jim wins the fight via knock out, and captures the imagination of the local sports community. Before long, Jim is racking up win after win and improving his lot in life as he prepares for an unexpected title shot against the devastating and unbeaten Max Baer (Craig Bierko).
The fact that Baer has killed two men in the ring is a cause of great stress for Jim and Mae as she worries for the safety of her husband while Jim sees the fight as his chance to provide some financial security for his family.
Anyone who has seen the trailer can be sure that the big fight will take place, and that the underdog will find himself in a battle against overwhelming odds, but what makes Cinderella Man such a captivating film is the captivating human drama that propels the film. There have been many boxing films ranging from “Rocky” to “Raging Bull”, that have depicted the graphic action of the ring, but few have reached the depths of human drama that this film does. Jim is not looking for glory, he is simply looking to provide for his family the best way that he is able be it in the ring or hauling cargo at the docks.
Crowe is riveting as he is able to convey his characters plight to the audience without making it seem forced or heavy handed. Where Crowe truly shines is his ability to mix the emotional sequences of the film with the athletic and action filled ring sequences and not lose any of his character. Far too often actors fail to convince in one aspect when they try to mix drama and action, but Crowe easily transitions between the demands of the role proving again that he is the most gifted actor in Hollywood. The steady direction of Ron Howard keeps the film moving at a crisp pace, without allowing the story to become mired in sentiment.
The only real issue I had with the film is that the talented Zellweger is not given enough to do, as beyond doting for and worry about her family, she is not given much to do aside from stand by while the action occurs around her.
That being said Cinderella Man, is a triumph of film making, and should be a forced to contend with come Oscar season.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Marvelous Cash Cows and How to Milk Them.
As just about everyone in the whole muggle world (or nomaj world if you’re reading this in the States) knows, FBaWtFT is the first of a five film spin-off series from the Potter franchise, still under the careful stewardship of David Yates. (And if the other films in the series were ‘amber-lit’ rather than ‘green-lit’, their production now seems assured after the US opening weekend alone has brought in nearly half its $180 million budget).
Set in New York in the mid-1920’s Eddie Redmayne (“The Danish Girl”; “The Theory of Everything”) plays Newt Scamander, a Brit newly arrived with a case full of trouble. Newt is a bit like an amiable and ditsy David Attenborough, with a strong desire to protect and establish breeding colonies for endangered species. It’s fair to say though that these are creatures that even Sir David hasn’t yet filmed.
Within the battered old case (a forerunner of Hermione Grainger’s bag, which was probably borrowed from Mary Poppins), Newt stores a menagerie of strange and wonderful creatures which – after a bump and a mishap – get released by wannabe baker and muggle Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler, “Fanboys”). Newt has the job of rounding up the strays with the help of Tina (Katherine Waterston, “Steve Jobs”), an out of favour member of the Magical Congress of the USA (MACUSA). Unfortunately this couldn’t be happening at a worse time: something else – nothing to do with Newt – is wreaking havoc across New York and MACUSA is on red alert suspecting the involvement of a dark wizard, Gellert Grindelwald, following attacks in Europe. And keeping the secrets of wizardry from the NoMaj population is getting increasingly difficult, especially with the efforts of the “Second Salemers” movement run by Mary Lou (Samantha Morton, “Minority Report”) and her strange adopted family.
This film will obviously be an enormous success given the love of all things Potter, but is it any good? Well, its different for sure, being set many years before Potter and only having glancing references to Hogwarts and related matters. And that gives the opportunity to start afresh with new characters and new relationships which is refreshing. It’s all perfectly amiable, with Redmayne’s slightly embarrassed lack of eye-contact* in delivering his lines being charming. [* Is this perhaps the second leading character in a month that is high on the autistic spectrum?] . Redmayne does have a tendency to mutter though and (particularly with the sound system for the cinema I saw this in) this made a lot of his dialogue inaudible. Waterston makes for a charming if somewhat insipid heroine, not being given an awful lot to do in the action sequences.
Kowalski adds a humorous balance to the mixture, but the star comic turns are some of the creatures, especially the Niffler… a light fingered magpie-like creature with a voluminous pouch and expensive tastes!
In the ‘I-almost-know-who-that-is-behind-the-make-up-but-can’t-quite-place-him’ role is Ron “Hellboy” Perlman as the untrustworthy gangster Gnarlack. And in another cameo – and probably paid an enormous fee for his 30 seconds of screen time – is Johnny Depp, which was money well-wasted since, like most of his roles, he was completely unrecognisable (I only knew it was him from checking imdb afterwards).
At the pen is J.K.Rowling herself, and there are a few corking lines in the script. However, in common with many of her novels, there is also a tendency for extrapolation and padding. Some judicial editing could have knocked at least twenty minutes off its child-unfriendly 133 minute running time and made a better film. Undoubtedly the first half of the film is better than the second, with the finale slouching into – as my other half put it – “superhero” territory with much CGI destruction and smashing of glass. What is perhaps most surprising about the story is that there are few obvious set-ups for the next film.
Quirky and original, its a film that will no-doubt please Potter fans and it stands as a decent fantasy film in its own right. It’s difficult though to get the smell of big business and exploitation out of your nostrils: no doubt stockings throughout the world will be full of plush toy nifflers this Christmas.
Set in New York in the mid-1920’s Eddie Redmayne (“The Danish Girl”; “The Theory of Everything”) plays Newt Scamander, a Brit newly arrived with a case full of trouble. Newt is a bit like an amiable and ditsy David Attenborough, with a strong desire to protect and establish breeding colonies for endangered species. It’s fair to say though that these are creatures that even Sir David hasn’t yet filmed.
Within the battered old case (a forerunner of Hermione Grainger’s bag, which was probably borrowed from Mary Poppins), Newt stores a menagerie of strange and wonderful creatures which – after a bump and a mishap – get released by wannabe baker and muggle Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler, “Fanboys”). Newt has the job of rounding up the strays with the help of Tina (Katherine Waterston, “Steve Jobs”), an out of favour member of the Magical Congress of the USA (MACUSA). Unfortunately this couldn’t be happening at a worse time: something else – nothing to do with Newt – is wreaking havoc across New York and MACUSA is on red alert suspecting the involvement of a dark wizard, Gellert Grindelwald, following attacks in Europe. And keeping the secrets of wizardry from the NoMaj population is getting increasingly difficult, especially with the efforts of the “Second Salemers” movement run by Mary Lou (Samantha Morton, “Minority Report”) and her strange adopted family.
This film will obviously be an enormous success given the love of all things Potter, but is it any good? Well, its different for sure, being set many years before Potter and only having glancing references to Hogwarts and related matters. And that gives the opportunity to start afresh with new characters and new relationships which is refreshing. It’s all perfectly amiable, with Redmayne’s slightly embarrassed lack of eye-contact* in delivering his lines being charming. [* Is this perhaps the second leading character in a month that is high on the autistic spectrum?] . Redmayne does have a tendency to mutter though and (particularly with the sound system for the cinema I saw this in) this made a lot of his dialogue inaudible. Waterston makes for a charming if somewhat insipid heroine, not being given an awful lot to do in the action sequences.
Kowalski adds a humorous balance to the mixture, but the star comic turns are some of the creatures, especially the Niffler… a light fingered magpie-like creature with a voluminous pouch and expensive tastes!
In the ‘I-almost-know-who-that-is-behind-the-make-up-but-can’t-quite-place-him’ role is Ron “Hellboy” Perlman as the untrustworthy gangster Gnarlack. And in another cameo – and probably paid an enormous fee for his 30 seconds of screen time – is Johnny Depp, which was money well-wasted since, like most of his roles, he was completely unrecognisable (I only knew it was him from checking imdb afterwards).
At the pen is J.K.Rowling herself, and there are a few corking lines in the script. However, in common with many of her novels, there is also a tendency for extrapolation and padding. Some judicial editing could have knocked at least twenty minutes off its child-unfriendly 133 minute running time and made a better film. Undoubtedly the first half of the film is better than the second, with the finale slouching into – as my other half put it – “superhero” territory with much CGI destruction and smashing of glass. What is perhaps most surprising about the story is that there are few obvious set-ups for the next film.
Quirky and original, its a film that will no-doubt please Potter fans and it stands as a decent fantasy film in its own right. It’s difficult though to get the smell of big business and exploitation out of your nostrils: no doubt stockings throughout the world will be full of plush toy nifflers this Christmas.
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Vixen (Flappers, #1) in Books
Feb 15, 2019
<i>3.75 stars</i>
<b><i>Once upon a time there were three beautiful girls who went to the best schools (and speakeasies), and they were each assigned booze and clothes that are the cat's meow. But the flapper lifestyle took them into different directions and now they work to find out who they are and what makes them truly happy. My name is Vixen.</i></b>
And so you've been introduced to the first installment of The Flappers series Charlie's Angels' style (the best I was able to come up with anyway).
<b>Meet our <s>Angels</s> Vixens:</b>
<u><i>Gloria</i></u> - She's the one who has it all: <i>the</i> name, riches, looks, clothes, a handsome fiancee, everything comes easily to her, and everybody seemingly loves her. But this poor little rich girl isn't so happy after all and so she begins to rebel.
<u><i>Clara</i></u> - Burned by her former flapper lifestyle, she's now trying to start over as "Country Clara" without her sordid past coming to light. So has she turned into a goody-two shoes or is it just part of a grander scheme? Only time will tell.
<u><i>Lorraine</i></u> - Jealous of best friend, Gloria, she's desperate to step out of Glo's shadow to become the center of attention as an individual.
<b>Before getting to my review, there are a few questions that should be addressed:</b>
Is this great literature? <i>No.</i>
Will this book change your life? <i>No.</i>
Will you learn anything from reading this book? <i>No. Well, maybe some twenties' slang.</i>
Is this book accurate to the period? <i>No, there are some liberties, but it's good enough as wallpaper to the players and scenes.</i>
Is this book entertaining beyond belief? <i>A resounding YES!</i>
VIXEN is very easy to read and captured my attention from the first page, and while it may not be the best book ever, I had a lot of fun reading it. While there's nothing glaringly obvious anachronism-wise, I did question some word choices, phrases, and actions, but overall they were easy to overlook and I likened it to watching A Knight's Tale starring Heath Ledger. Written in third-person, each chapter focuses on one the three girls' point-of-view, starting with Gloria and continuing with Clara and then Lorraine, throughout the book until the end.
As for the characters, Clara (named after Ms. Clara Bow?) was definitely my favorite to read about, she's recovering from the aftereffects of her life in New York City (which includes a boy, of course), and is trying her best to leave the past behind and move on with her life. Her story had a lot to offer and she felt like a real person who had made mistakes and was now left dealing with the repercussions. Lorraine was a trainwreck you can't take your eyes off of, and while I can't say I liked her, I felt sorry for her. She tries way too hard to stand out and ends up making herself look pathetic; if she keeps it up she'll turn into a very ugly person whom everyone hates. Forget Gloria, Lorraine is the "real" poor little rich girl of the book. She's in the middle of making all the wrong decisions and we're along for the journey, which made her multidimensional and interesting to read about as well. Gloria was my least favorite, mainly because I don't think the author knew quite how to write her. At one moment Gloria seemed like a good girl rebelling, but then there would be moments where she was a real bitch and those two aspects just didn't gel into a cohesive whole. Now if she was seemingly sweet on the outside and really was a conniving bitch underneath, then I'd be on board or at least would get it. But she wasn't that type of bitch and she wasn't Alexis Carrington-bitchy (or insert less-dated reference here) either. How she was written made her look more like Sybil and didn't render me to sympathize with her at all. It didn't help that I felt she was too close to a Mary-Sue for my liking. I don't like perfect or near-perfect characters, they're boring and so was she. What was her motivation for anything, such as singing? Was that always a dream or did it just now come about? Is her recent behavior only happening because she's unhappy? Sorry, but there's just not enough there to make me care about this character. Gloria needed to be more fleshed out to make her feel like a real human, with real thoughts in her head and real feelings, and not a cliched cardboard cut-out.
The love aspects of the novel were fairly glossed over, mainly Gloria and Jerome's story, and felt more like teenage hormones than actual real love.
<i>"I don't know you but you're hot and I love you."
"Nothing will keep us apart!"
"We'll be together forever!"</i>
Which is too bad because I like the idea of an interracial romance taking place in the 1920's, it could have been fantastic, but instead was tepid and generally unromantic. It didn't help that half the duo was boring old Gloria and the other half never developed beyond the fact that he's a black musician who's forbidden to her due to the color of his skin. I wished for more impact and still hope for that in the next installment of the series. Clara's budding relationship with Marcus was far more realistic because they actually had conversations *gasp* and was well-paced. The relationships between the girls were touch and go, sometimes they felt authentic, then at other times interactions appeared too advanced to where the relationship had last left off; it was like there were scenes edited out in chunks. The same could be said of the developing romance between Gloria and Jerome.
So a few things bothered me in the book, such as the issue I had with every girl who wasn't one of the main trio being cattily described, i.e. eyes are close together, that color makes her look sallow, etc. Can we get over doing that already? That's not encouraging good behavior. A little more positivity would be a refreshing change. Another thing that annoyed me was at one point, the crap hit the fan and *minor spoiler* <spoiler>Gloria's career as a torch singer, which she's naturally perfect at (of course), came out into the open. So who does she immediately blame? Her best friend, Lorraine of course, whom she slaps! And who to this point Gloria had no provocation to even think it'd be her who had spilled the beans. Lorraine had not done anything to deserve Gloria's wrath, or at least nothing she knew about yet, so I don't know if the author had forgotten that fact or what. It did not make any kind of sense because there were other people who knew what Gloria was up to and others who could have easily found out. To me it was sloppy writing. What kind of friend does that make Gloria anyway? Not one I'd like, who always thinks the worst of her best friend without any miniscule proof of guilt. Told ya she was a bitch</spoiler>. There were some minor editing inaccuracies, such as when Gloria's dress goes from gold sequined to red in less than a page (pages 74-5) but nothing too overt to jar me out of the book altogether. Lastly, perhaps there was a bit too much twenties' slang that wasn't always incorporated into the text as smoothly as possible.
Overall, the plots were well-done and moved along at a brisk enough pace that I never got bored. The ending unfolded so that it tied up the multiple plotlines while still keeping plenty of loose ends for the sequel. So, a lot of the book is superficial, in some cases there are caricatures instead of characters, and it is a shallow interpretation of the Roaring Twenties, I don't care, the book is just plain fun and sometimes that's all I need. And while I can't say I loved this book and it totally lived up to its beautiful cover (seriously that dress is gorgeous, though I could do without the pit shot), I was suitably entertained and will read the sequels to find out what happens next, while I keep up the hope that Gloria will turn into a real, live girl.
<b><i>Once upon a time there were three beautiful girls who went to the best schools (and speakeasies), and they were each assigned booze and clothes that are the cat's meow. But the flapper lifestyle took them into different directions and now they work to find out who they are and what makes them truly happy. My name is Vixen.</i></b>
And so you've been introduced to the first installment of The Flappers series Charlie's Angels' style (the best I was able to come up with anyway).
<b>Meet our <s>Angels</s> Vixens:</b>
<u><i>Gloria</i></u> - She's the one who has it all: <i>the</i> name, riches, looks, clothes, a handsome fiancee, everything comes easily to her, and everybody seemingly loves her. But this poor little rich girl isn't so happy after all and so she begins to rebel.
<u><i>Clara</i></u> - Burned by her former flapper lifestyle, she's now trying to start over as "Country Clara" without her sordid past coming to light. So has she turned into a goody-two shoes or is it just part of a grander scheme? Only time will tell.
<u><i>Lorraine</i></u> - Jealous of best friend, Gloria, she's desperate to step out of Glo's shadow to become the center of attention as an individual.
<b>Before getting to my review, there are a few questions that should be addressed:</b>
Is this great literature? <i>No.</i>
Will this book change your life? <i>No.</i>
Will you learn anything from reading this book? <i>No. Well, maybe some twenties' slang.</i>
Is this book accurate to the period? <i>No, there are some liberties, but it's good enough as wallpaper to the players and scenes.</i>
Is this book entertaining beyond belief? <i>A resounding YES!</i>
VIXEN is very easy to read and captured my attention from the first page, and while it may not be the best book ever, I had a lot of fun reading it. While there's nothing glaringly obvious anachronism-wise, I did question some word choices, phrases, and actions, but overall they were easy to overlook and I likened it to watching A Knight's Tale starring Heath Ledger. Written in third-person, each chapter focuses on one the three girls' point-of-view, starting with Gloria and continuing with Clara and then Lorraine, throughout the book until the end.
As for the characters, Clara (named after Ms. Clara Bow?) was definitely my favorite to read about, she's recovering from the aftereffects of her life in New York City (which includes a boy, of course), and is trying her best to leave the past behind and move on with her life. Her story had a lot to offer and she felt like a real person who had made mistakes and was now left dealing with the repercussions. Lorraine was a trainwreck you can't take your eyes off of, and while I can't say I liked her, I felt sorry for her. She tries way too hard to stand out and ends up making herself look pathetic; if she keeps it up she'll turn into a very ugly person whom everyone hates. Forget Gloria, Lorraine is the "real" poor little rich girl of the book. She's in the middle of making all the wrong decisions and we're along for the journey, which made her multidimensional and interesting to read about as well. Gloria was my least favorite, mainly because I don't think the author knew quite how to write her. At one moment Gloria seemed like a good girl rebelling, but then there would be moments where she was a real bitch and those two aspects just didn't gel into a cohesive whole. Now if she was seemingly sweet on the outside and really was a conniving bitch underneath, then I'd be on board or at least would get it. But she wasn't that type of bitch and she wasn't Alexis Carrington-bitchy (or insert less-dated reference here) either. How she was written made her look more like Sybil and didn't render me to sympathize with her at all. It didn't help that I felt she was too close to a Mary-Sue for my liking. I don't like perfect or near-perfect characters, they're boring and so was she. What was her motivation for anything, such as singing? Was that always a dream or did it just now come about? Is her recent behavior only happening because she's unhappy? Sorry, but there's just not enough there to make me care about this character. Gloria needed to be more fleshed out to make her feel like a real human, with real thoughts in her head and real feelings, and not a cliched cardboard cut-out.
The love aspects of the novel were fairly glossed over, mainly Gloria and Jerome's story, and felt more like teenage hormones than actual real love.
<i>"I don't know you but you're hot and I love you."
"Nothing will keep us apart!"
"We'll be together forever!"</i>
Which is too bad because I like the idea of an interracial romance taking place in the 1920's, it could have been fantastic, but instead was tepid and generally unromantic. It didn't help that half the duo was boring old Gloria and the other half never developed beyond the fact that he's a black musician who's forbidden to her due to the color of his skin. I wished for more impact and still hope for that in the next installment of the series. Clara's budding relationship with Marcus was far more realistic because they actually had conversations *gasp* and was well-paced. The relationships between the girls were touch and go, sometimes they felt authentic, then at other times interactions appeared too advanced to where the relationship had last left off; it was like there were scenes edited out in chunks. The same could be said of the developing romance between Gloria and Jerome.
So a few things bothered me in the book, such as the issue I had with every girl who wasn't one of the main trio being cattily described, i.e. eyes are close together, that color makes her look sallow, etc. Can we get over doing that already? That's not encouraging good behavior. A little more positivity would be a refreshing change. Another thing that annoyed me was at one point, the crap hit the fan and *minor spoiler* <spoiler>Gloria's career as a torch singer, which she's naturally perfect at (of course), came out into the open. So who does she immediately blame? Her best friend, Lorraine of course, whom she slaps! And who to this point Gloria had no provocation to even think it'd be her who had spilled the beans. Lorraine had not done anything to deserve Gloria's wrath, or at least nothing she knew about yet, so I don't know if the author had forgotten that fact or what. It did not make any kind of sense because there were other people who knew what Gloria was up to and others who could have easily found out. To me it was sloppy writing. What kind of friend does that make Gloria anyway? Not one I'd like, who always thinks the worst of her best friend without any miniscule proof of guilt. Told ya she was a bitch</spoiler>. There were some minor editing inaccuracies, such as when Gloria's dress goes from gold sequined to red in less than a page (pages 74-5) but nothing too overt to jar me out of the book altogether. Lastly, perhaps there was a bit too much twenties' slang that wasn't always incorporated into the text as smoothly as possible.
Overall, the plots were well-done and moved along at a brisk enough pace that I never got bored. The ending unfolded so that it tied up the multiple plotlines while still keeping plenty of loose ends for the sequel. So, a lot of the book is superficial, in some cases there are caricatures instead of characters, and it is a shallow interpretation of the Roaring Twenties, I don't care, the book is just plain fun and sometimes that's all I need. And while I can't say I loved this book and it totally lived up to its beautiful cover (seriously that dress is gorgeous, though I could do without the pit shot), I was suitably entertained and will read the sequels to find out what happens next, while I keep up the hope that Gloria will turn into a real, live girl.
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.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Killers of the Flower moon (2023) in Movies
Oct 27, 2023
Best Thing Scorses (and DeNiro) have done in many, many years
The BankofMarquis would highly recommend you see the latest epic (and we do mean EPIC) film from famed Director Martin Scorsese in a movie theater. Not because of the beautiful Cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto, not because of the Epic-ness of the tale told and not because movie theaters could use your business (all of which are reasons to see it in the movie theaters). You need to see KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON in a movie theater so that you cannot be distracted by things around you (most, notably your PHONE). One needs to immerse themselves in the experience of this 3 1/2 movie to totally understand and appreciate it.
And that is because KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON is as much atmosphere, mood and setting as it is story. Early on, one of the characters warns another one that the Osage people (the central group in this story) “don’t say much, listen more and let long pauses hang between words” and Scorsese does much of the same. Letting the story hang - and be told in - the silence between the words. And it works…if you are paying attention.
Starring Scorsese regulars Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert DeNiro and featuring a wonderful, soon-to-be-Oscar-Nominated performance by newcomer Lily Gladstone, KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON is based on the novel of the same name by David Gann and tells the tale of the Osage Nation who discover oil on their land in the 1920’s and the white men who come to try to connive and steal it away from them.
Taken on the surface, this story could be a pretty straight-forward white-man steals from the Indians story (substitute Buffalo for Oil and we have a story told so many times before - most notably in the Oscar winning movie DANCING WITH WOLVES), but in the hands of master craftsman Scorsese, this movie is much, much more than that.
Easily his best work in at least 10 years, Scorsese lets this story breathe and focuses in on the mood and atmosphere of the period - and the disparate people that inhabit…and battle for…this land and oil. It is the work of a maestro nearing the end of his tenure, skillfully conducting the Orchestra, one last, loving, magnificent time.
Like Scorsese, this is Oscar winner Robert DeNiro’s best performance in years and will not be surprised if he garners his first Oscar nomination in many, many years. Gone are the histrionics and over-the-top gestures and facial ticks that mar his comedic work (and in some cases his non-comedic work). DeNiro returns to the compact, internal “method” acting that was the hallmark of his early (best) work. You can see that this player still has “game” and he gives the role of William “King” Hale some dimension. This is good for this character could have, in lesser hands, turned into a “mustache-twirling” villain tying the heroine to the railroad tracks but in DeNiro’s capable hands (with Scorsese skillfully leading him) it is so much more.
Speaking of the Heroine, newcomer Lily Gladstone is just a strong and compact in her portrayal of Mollie Burkhart - the Osage woman in the center of the story. She gives Lily some sharp edges along with the rounded corners she is given in the script and the story and more than holds her own with the likes of DeNiro and DiCaprio in the many, many scenes she has with them. Most of the time, she needs to express quite a bit with a look or silence (while looking away) and she is able to convey that very, very well.
Fairing less well in this film is Leonardo DiCaprio as Ernest Burkhart, the sad-sack that is the pawn of “King” Hale and the love interest of Lily…or is he? DiCaprio is very good as Burkhart (when has he ever given a bad performance) but this character is thinly written and you can almost see the puppet strings on him. This, probably, is on purpose by Scorsese…but against two solid characters like DeNiro’s “King” Hale and Gladstone’s Molly, there just needed to be a bit more to DiCaprio’s character to make him more interesting.
Since this is a Scorsese film, it is fleshed out by some wonderful character actors led by the always watchable Jesse Plemons as the FBI agent sent to unpack what is going on. Joining him in what are (essentially) extended cameos are John Lithgow, newly minted Oscar winner Brendan Fraser, the always good Tantoo Cardinal, Scott Shepherd (as Leo’s brother) and a myriad of “that guy” and “interesting looking roughnecks” to flesh the feel of the film out - both on the white man as well as the Osage sides of the story.
The aforementioned Cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto along with the Costuming (Jacqueline West), Production Design (Jack Fisk) and Score (Robbie Peterson) all add to the mood of the piece and makes it very successful, indeed.
Just be forewarned, it is as every bit of 3 1/2 hours as it’s runtime dictates. There will be long, slow, silent parts that will make you tempted to pick up your phone - but resist that and enjoy the epic mood piece that is KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON. You won’t regret it.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
And that is because KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON is as much atmosphere, mood and setting as it is story. Early on, one of the characters warns another one that the Osage people (the central group in this story) “don’t say much, listen more and let long pauses hang between words” and Scorsese does much of the same. Letting the story hang - and be told in - the silence between the words. And it works…if you are paying attention.
Starring Scorsese regulars Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert DeNiro and featuring a wonderful, soon-to-be-Oscar-Nominated performance by newcomer Lily Gladstone, KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON is based on the novel of the same name by David Gann and tells the tale of the Osage Nation who discover oil on their land in the 1920’s and the white men who come to try to connive and steal it away from them.
Taken on the surface, this story could be a pretty straight-forward white-man steals from the Indians story (substitute Buffalo for Oil and we have a story told so many times before - most notably in the Oscar winning movie DANCING WITH WOLVES), but in the hands of master craftsman Scorsese, this movie is much, much more than that.
Easily his best work in at least 10 years, Scorsese lets this story breathe and focuses in on the mood and atmosphere of the period - and the disparate people that inhabit…and battle for…this land and oil. It is the work of a maestro nearing the end of his tenure, skillfully conducting the Orchestra, one last, loving, magnificent time.
Like Scorsese, this is Oscar winner Robert DeNiro’s best performance in years and will not be surprised if he garners his first Oscar nomination in many, many years. Gone are the histrionics and over-the-top gestures and facial ticks that mar his comedic work (and in some cases his non-comedic work). DeNiro returns to the compact, internal “method” acting that was the hallmark of his early (best) work. You can see that this player still has “game” and he gives the role of William “King” Hale some dimension. This is good for this character could have, in lesser hands, turned into a “mustache-twirling” villain tying the heroine to the railroad tracks but in DeNiro’s capable hands (with Scorsese skillfully leading him) it is so much more.
Speaking of the Heroine, newcomer Lily Gladstone is just a strong and compact in her portrayal of Mollie Burkhart - the Osage woman in the center of the story. She gives Lily some sharp edges along with the rounded corners she is given in the script and the story and more than holds her own with the likes of DeNiro and DiCaprio in the many, many scenes she has with them. Most of the time, she needs to express quite a bit with a look or silence (while looking away) and she is able to convey that very, very well.
Fairing less well in this film is Leonardo DiCaprio as Ernest Burkhart, the sad-sack that is the pawn of “King” Hale and the love interest of Lily…or is he? DiCaprio is very good as Burkhart (when has he ever given a bad performance) but this character is thinly written and you can almost see the puppet strings on him. This, probably, is on purpose by Scorsese…but against two solid characters like DeNiro’s “King” Hale and Gladstone’s Molly, there just needed to be a bit more to DiCaprio’s character to make him more interesting.
Since this is a Scorsese film, it is fleshed out by some wonderful character actors led by the always watchable Jesse Plemons as the FBI agent sent to unpack what is going on. Joining him in what are (essentially) extended cameos are John Lithgow, newly minted Oscar winner Brendan Fraser, the always good Tantoo Cardinal, Scott Shepherd (as Leo’s brother) and a myriad of “that guy” and “interesting looking roughnecks” to flesh the feel of the film out - both on the white man as well as the Osage sides of the story.
The aforementioned Cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto along with the Costuming (Jacqueline West), Production Design (Jack Fisk) and Score (Robbie Peterson) all add to the mood of the piece and makes it very successful, indeed.
Just be forewarned, it is as every bit of 3 1/2 hours as it’s runtime dictates. There will be long, slow, silent parts that will make you tempted to pick up your phone - but resist that and enjoy the epic mood piece that is KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON. You won’t regret it.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb in Books
Apr 13, 2019
"The crime itself was indefensible. The brilliant, spoiled and bored sons of two of Chicago's wealthiest families planned to commit the perfect crime both for the thrill of and to prove their perverse misunderstanding of Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy of the 'superman,' who was above all law so long as he made no mistake. Their plan, worked out over several months, was to kidnap and immediately kill one of their younger neighbors and hide his body. They would then demand and collect a ransom. The body would never be discovered, the crime would never be solved and only they would know that they had prevailed over ordinary human beings and their simple-minded legal system. But far from being the 'perfect crime,' the murder of 14-year-old Bobby Franks turned out to be amateurishly botched. Before any ransom could be paid, the boy's body was discovered in a culvert near where Nathan Leopold often went bird-watching. A pair of telltale glasses were found adjacent to the body. They were easily traced to Leopold who first came up with a paper-thin alibi and soon thereafter confessed to the crime. His fellow murderer likewise confessed. Each of the 'superboys' placed blame for the actual killing on the other." - Alan M. Dershowitz
If you mentioned the names Leopold and Loeb today, many people wouldn't know who you were talking about, but if you had mentioned them just thirty years ago, many people would recall the 'murder of the century.'
If you are a fan of the True Crime genre, you'll come across the case of two wealthy Chicago boys who thought they could get away with murder. (The trial is probably the most talked about trial to-date because this is the first time that psychology was brought before a court room.)
For a good part of the late 1920's, Leopold and Loeb were household names for good reason: they came from millionaire families, they were college graduates before they were 18-years-old, and their trial was the first time in history that the world saw psychology put in front of a judge. The trial was even more unforgettable due to a closing speech given by famous defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, which is reprinted in its entirety,spanning a hefty 93 pages.
Nathan Leopold, Jr. and Richard Loeb were two people who should have never met, according to the courtroom. The two met at about the age of fifteen, soon after they began to embark on criminal acts together, ranging from theft to arson. It's stated in 'the Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' that Loeb had created a fantasy world where he was a crime ringleader that was too smart for the police to catch. Readers get to judge for themselves whether or not they believe Loeb was the cause of their crimes, or if Leopold was the one really in charge.
After robbing Loeb's fraternity house together, Leopold and Loeb came up with a plan to kidnap a wealthy child that they could then ransom. "They began to devise elaborate plans for this kidnapping, and soon the planning became the all-important thing. They gave up the idea of kidnapping this particular person [a young man named William], and settled on the idea of kidnapping anyone who would fit in their kidnapping plans." Throughout the book, we find out that the boys were pretty desperate for a kidnapping victim, that they even thought about kidnapping one of their close friends:
"The plan of kidnaping Dick Rubel was given up because Dick Rubel's father was so tight we might not get any money from him."
Leopold and Loeb discussed everything from how they would receive the ransom, what weapons they would use, how they would get the victim inside a rented vehicle, and what they would do with the body afterwards. "In March, 1924, the patient [Loeb] conceived the idea of securing the money by having it thrown off a moving train. This idea was discussed in great detail, and gradually developed into a carefully systematized plan. As time wore on the plan became greatly modified from the original one. They discussed at considerable length the choice of a suitable subject for kidnapping. The patient's companion [Leopold] suggested that they kidnap a young girl instead of a boy, but the patient [Loeb] objected to this. His companion [Leopold] also suggested that they kidnap the patient's [Loeb] younger brother, but the patient apparently did not seriously consider doing this. They then considered half a dozen boys, any one of whom would do, for the following reasons: that they were physically small enough to be easily handled and their parents were extremely wealthy and would have no difficulty or disinclination to pay ransom money."
During the trial, Leopold and Loeb's psychological evaluations became the forefront of their guilty plea, stating that they were not responsible for their actions due to their upbringing and environment. "I submit the facts do not rest on the evidence of these boys alone. It is proven by the writings; it is proven by every act. It is proven by their companions, and there can by no question about it." Clarence Darrow explains in his famous closing statement. "We brought into this courtroom a number of their boy friends, whom they had known day by day, who had associated with them in the club house, were their constant companions, and they tell the same stories. They tell the story that neither of these two boys was responsible for his conduct."
'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' contains the portions of the psychiatric evaluations that were submitted in court,but the testimony of character witnesses is omitted. For a factual telling of a real life trial, this book is okay. If the reader pays attention, they may notice that some of the book contradicts itself, such as one page states that the car robe used to wrap up Franks' body was found buried near Lake Michigan,but then pages later, the book states it had been burned at Loeb's home.
The psychiatric reports are very repetitive,just using different words to describe the same things. Yet, these reports are the backbone of the trial and well worth a read. The evaluations and Darrow's extensive speech were what saved Leopold and Loeb from a death sentence.
There are very few books written about the 'murder of the century,' and even less about the 'lawyer of the century.' Leopold and Loeb, as well as Darrow, have faded into the obscurity of the True Crime genre, but because the boys' mental state was brought into question, we now accept forensic science/psychology in the court room today. I feel that only people who are truly interested in True Crime, or even have a fascination for the court room are the only ones who will enjoy 'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb.'
If you mentioned the names Leopold and Loeb today, many people wouldn't know who you were talking about, but if you had mentioned them just thirty years ago, many people would recall the 'murder of the century.'
If you are a fan of the True Crime genre, you'll come across the case of two wealthy Chicago boys who thought they could get away with murder. (The trial is probably the most talked about trial to-date because this is the first time that psychology was brought before a court room.)
For a good part of the late 1920's, Leopold and Loeb were household names for good reason: they came from millionaire families, they were college graduates before they were 18-years-old, and their trial was the first time in history that the world saw psychology put in front of a judge. The trial was even more unforgettable due to a closing speech given by famous defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, which is reprinted in its entirety,spanning a hefty 93 pages.
Nathan Leopold, Jr. and Richard Loeb were two people who should have never met, according to the courtroom. The two met at about the age of fifteen, soon after they began to embark on criminal acts together, ranging from theft to arson. It's stated in 'the Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' that Loeb had created a fantasy world where he was a crime ringleader that was too smart for the police to catch. Readers get to judge for themselves whether or not they believe Loeb was the cause of their crimes, or if Leopold was the one really in charge.
After robbing Loeb's fraternity house together, Leopold and Loeb came up with a plan to kidnap a wealthy child that they could then ransom. "They began to devise elaborate plans for this kidnapping, and soon the planning became the all-important thing. They gave up the idea of kidnapping this particular person [a young man named William], and settled on the idea of kidnapping anyone who would fit in their kidnapping plans." Throughout the book, we find out that the boys were pretty desperate for a kidnapping victim, that they even thought about kidnapping one of their close friends:
"The plan of kidnaping Dick Rubel was given up because Dick Rubel's father was so tight we might not get any money from him."
Leopold and Loeb discussed everything from how they would receive the ransom, what weapons they would use, how they would get the victim inside a rented vehicle, and what they would do with the body afterwards. "In March, 1924, the patient [Loeb] conceived the idea of securing the money by having it thrown off a moving train. This idea was discussed in great detail, and gradually developed into a carefully systematized plan. As time wore on the plan became greatly modified from the original one. They discussed at considerable length the choice of a suitable subject for kidnapping. The patient's companion [Leopold] suggested that they kidnap a young girl instead of a boy, but the patient [Loeb] objected to this. His companion [Leopold] also suggested that they kidnap the patient's [Loeb] younger brother, but the patient apparently did not seriously consider doing this. They then considered half a dozen boys, any one of whom would do, for the following reasons: that they were physically small enough to be easily handled and their parents were extremely wealthy and would have no difficulty or disinclination to pay ransom money."
During the trial, Leopold and Loeb's psychological evaluations became the forefront of their guilty plea, stating that they were not responsible for their actions due to their upbringing and environment. "I submit the facts do not rest on the evidence of these boys alone. It is proven by the writings; it is proven by every act. It is proven by their companions, and there can by no question about it." Clarence Darrow explains in his famous closing statement. "We brought into this courtroom a number of their boy friends, whom they had known day by day, who had associated with them in the club house, were their constant companions, and they tell the same stories. They tell the story that neither of these two boys was responsible for his conduct."
'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' contains the portions of the psychiatric evaluations that were submitted in court,but the testimony of character witnesses is omitted. For a factual telling of a real life trial, this book is okay. If the reader pays attention, they may notice that some of the book contradicts itself, such as one page states that the car robe used to wrap up Franks' body was found buried near Lake Michigan,but then pages later, the book states it had been burned at Loeb's home.
The psychiatric reports are very repetitive,just using different words to describe the same things. Yet, these reports are the backbone of the trial and well worth a read. The evaluations and Darrow's extensive speech were what saved Leopold and Loeb from a death sentence.
There are very few books written about the 'murder of the century,' and even less about the 'lawyer of the century.' Leopold and Loeb, as well as Darrow, have faded into the obscurity of the True Crime genre, but because the boys' mental state was brought into question, we now accept forensic science/psychology in the court room today. I feel that only people who are truly interested in True Crime, or even have a fascination for the court room are the only ones who will enjoy 'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb.'