Search
Search results
Naval Creed:Warships
Games
App
●Description● Naval Creed is a naval-battle-themed TPS game with 360° free perspective 3D...
Grandpa's Toy Shop
Education and Games
App
Design, build, and decorate ten different kinds of toys to sell in Grandpa's Toy Shop! After you use...
Terraforming Mars
8.7
Rate It
Tabletop Game
In the 2400s, mankind begins to terraform the planet Mars. Giant corporations, sponsored by the...
Boardgame TerraformThis MeeplesChoice
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Censor (2021) in Movies
Sep 3, 2021
Niamh Algar is fabulous (1 more)
Novel story and great direction
A genuinely original story (at last!)
Positives:
- I often whinge on about there being no novelty in movies anymore, with everything being derivative of everything else. Well here's a case for the defence. There have been movies before about the mental effect of working in the horror movie business (Toby Jones in "Berberian Sound Studio" comes to mind). But none (as far as I'm aware) from the viewpoint of a film censor. This novelty gave the movie the scope to go in a number of different directions - including as a historical drama. But it focuses on a study of how loss and grief can suddenly emerge in dramatic ways even after many years. Director Prano Bailey-Bond co-wrote this and directs it with such verve that she is very much added to my "one to watch" list for writer-directors.
- Irish actress Niamh Algar is just brilliant here, reminiscent of Morfydd Clark's fantastic performance in "Saint Maud" (not the only parallel to be drawn in this review). The acting during the dramatic conclusion is utterly chilling.
- While the ending of the movie might be polarising, I loved it. No spoilers, but it's one of my favourite endings of any movie so far this year. It reminded me strongly of the ending of "Saint Maud".
- The editing is by Mark Towns (who also did "Saint Maud"). And it's bloody marvellous, particularly during that finale! While it doesn't shy away from showing some pretty horrible stuff, Towns shows much of this subliminally in the edit (shades of the "Psycho" shower scene). This probably helped with its certification (of which more later).
- The music by Emilie Levienaise-Farrouch is quirky and fitting for the movie. I loved the jaunty end-title music.
- Has one of the best impalings since Timothy Dalton fell on that model church spire in "Hot Fuzz"!
Negatives:
- While Algar is utterly fabulous, I was less convinced by the acting of some of her fellow censors in the office. Some of this felt a bit wooden to me.
Summary Thoughts on "Censor": The workings of the UK film censors have always fascinated me, and here's a novel insight into their work during a very difficult period in their history: the National Viewers and Listener's Association, headed by the fearsome Mary Whitehouse, was up in arms at the potential damage to people's (and particularly children's) mental wellbeing from the influx of "video nasties" arriving in homes on VHS tapes. The film needs to be applauded for coming up with such a novel storyline.
What I found surprising (and ironic) is that this got away with only a "15" certificate. Editor Mark Towns suggested to me, in a private communication on Twitter, that the BBFC rated it thus due to the "context" in which the violence was set. But I remember the first 'X' film I saw. It was Brian De Palma's "The Fury", which (from memory) was purely rated as such for the final scene in which John Cassavetes's character explodes in a gory fountain. Judging from "Censor"'s "15" certificate, things have become significantly more permissive in recent years!
(For the full graphical review check out onemannsmovies on the web, facebook and (for the video review) Tiktok. Thanks)
- I often whinge on about there being no novelty in movies anymore, with everything being derivative of everything else. Well here's a case for the defence. There have been movies before about the mental effect of working in the horror movie business (Toby Jones in "Berberian Sound Studio" comes to mind). But none (as far as I'm aware) from the viewpoint of a film censor. This novelty gave the movie the scope to go in a number of different directions - including as a historical drama. But it focuses on a study of how loss and grief can suddenly emerge in dramatic ways even after many years. Director Prano Bailey-Bond co-wrote this and directs it with such verve that she is very much added to my "one to watch" list for writer-directors.
- Irish actress Niamh Algar is just brilliant here, reminiscent of Morfydd Clark's fantastic performance in "Saint Maud" (not the only parallel to be drawn in this review). The acting during the dramatic conclusion is utterly chilling.
- While the ending of the movie might be polarising, I loved it. No spoilers, but it's one of my favourite endings of any movie so far this year. It reminded me strongly of the ending of "Saint Maud".
- The editing is by Mark Towns (who also did "Saint Maud"). And it's bloody marvellous, particularly during that finale! While it doesn't shy away from showing some pretty horrible stuff, Towns shows much of this subliminally in the edit (shades of the "Psycho" shower scene). This probably helped with its certification (of which more later).
- The music by Emilie Levienaise-Farrouch is quirky and fitting for the movie. I loved the jaunty end-title music.
- Has one of the best impalings since Timothy Dalton fell on that model church spire in "Hot Fuzz"!
Negatives:
- While Algar is utterly fabulous, I was less convinced by the acting of some of her fellow censors in the office. Some of this felt a bit wooden to me.
Summary Thoughts on "Censor": The workings of the UK film censors have always fascinated me, and here's a novel insight into their work during a very difficult period in their history: the National Viewers and Listener's Association, headed by the fearsome Mary Whitehouse, was up in arms at the potential damage to people's (and particularly children's) mental wellbeing from the influx of "video nasties" arriving in homes on VHS tapes. The film needs to be applauded for coming up with such a novel storyline.
What I found surprising (and ironic) is that this got away with only a "15" certificate. Editor Mark Towns suggested to me, in a private communication on Twitter, that the BBFC rated it thus due to the "context" in which the violence was set. But I remember the first 'X' film I saw. It was Brian De Palma's "The Fury", which (from memory) was purely rated as such for the final scene in which John Cassavetes's character explodes in a gory fountain. Judging from "Censor"'s "15" certificate, things have become significantly more permissive in recent years!
(For the full graphical review check out onemannsmovies on the web, facebook and (for the video review) Tiktok. Thanks)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Beatles: Eight Days A Week - The Touring Years (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A film worth getting into your life.
Reviewing documentaries is always a bit tricky, since it is often difficult to separate the quality of the film making from your emotional attachment to the subject material. In my case, my early life was saturated with Beatlemania. Although I was only 2 year’s old in 1963 at the start of it all, I had three older siblings who ramped up the excitement so much that it permeated my young mind. I still remember being vehemently “Sssshhed” since I was making too much noise during the live and ground-breaking “All you need is Love” telecast!
Ron Howard’s film focuses on “the touring years” which as depicted were truly manic, spanning from 1963 to 1966 before then skipping forward to 1969 for their final rooftop concert. This was in a time when airline travel was not the more comfortable and smoke-free environment it is today, so these worldwide trips much have been seriously grueling, even without the adoration that reached dangerous proportions when they reached their destinations.
Howard has clearly had his research team scour the world for archive clips since – whilst sensitively skipping some of the more ‘commonly seen’ materials, like the “jewelry shaking” clip – the film shows concert action I certainly had never seen before.
The film is also nicely interlaced with celebrity cameos recalling their linkage to the Fab Four’s performances (often moving, like Whoopi Goldberg’s) and the group’s “legacy” effect on modern-day art (in Richard Curtis’s case rather less convincing). One of the most striking of these is that of Sigourney Weaver recounting her attendance as a pre-teen at the Beatle’s Rose Bowl performance in LA. There, in the newsreel footage of adoring fans, is the unmistakable face of the ‘before she was famous’ actress: at least I hope it really was her (as the clip’s timing implied) and not a lookalike, since that would be really disappointing!
Also featuring – although not enough for my liking – are Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, recounting their feelings about the events and what happened behind the closed doors of hotel rooms or – most notably – a meat truck.
What shines through is the honesty and intelligence of Lennon and McCartney, typified by the idiotic questioning of journalists, some of who had done so little homework they didn’t even know there wasn’t a Beatle called Eric! Some of the group’s off the cuff responses were priceless: “What is the secret of your success?” asks one journo. “We don’t know” quips John. “If we knew we’d form another group and be managers.”
While the film has enormous energy in its first two thirds, it rather runs out of momentum in its final reel…. a bit like the Beatles did in fact. It also has elements of gimmickry like the smoke rising from photo cigarettes which gets a tad tiresome after the tenth occurrence.
But this is a very watchable and enjoyable rock down memory lane for 50-somethings and for any fans old and young of the Fab Four’s music. Highly Recommended. Note that the documentary itself is about 90 minutes in length, with another 30 minutes of live concert music tagged onto the end post-titles (which for travel reasons I was unfortunately unable to stay for so can’t comment on).
Ron Howard’s film focuses on “the touring years” which as depicted were truly manic, spanning from 1963 to 1966 before then skipping forward to 1969 for their final rooftop concert. This was in a time when airline travel was not the more comfortable and smoke-free environment it is today, so these worldwide trips much have been seriously grueling, even without the adoration that reached dangerous proportions when they reached their destinations.
Howard has clearly had his research team scour the world for archive clips since – whilst sensitively skipping some of the more ‘commonly seen’ materials, like the “jewelry shaking” clip – the film shows concert action I certainly had never seen before.
The film is also nicely interlaced with celebrity cameos recalling their linkage to the Fab Four’s performances (often moving, like Whoopi Goldberg’s) and the group’s “legacy” effect on modern-day art (in Richard Curtis’s case rather less convincing). One of the most striking of these is that of Sigourney Weaver recounting her attendance as a pre-teen at the Beatle’s Rose Bowl performance in LA. There, in the newsreel footage of adoring fans, is the unmistakable face of the ‘before she was famous’ actress: at least I hope it really was her (as the clip’s timing implied) and not a lookalike, since that would be really disappointing!
Also featuring – although not enough for my liking – are Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, recounting their feelings about the events and what happened behind the closed doors of hotel rooms or – most notably – a meat truck.
What shines through is the honesty and intelligence of Lennon and McCartney, typified by the idiotic questioning of journalists, some of who had done so little homework they didn’t even know there wasn’t a Beatle called Eric! Some of the group’s off the cuff responses were priceless: “What is the secret of your success?” asks one journo. “We don’t know” quips John. “If we knew we’d form another group and be managers.”
While the film has enormous energy in its first two thirds, it rather runs out of momentum in its final reel…. a bit like the Beatles did in fact. It also has elements of gimmickry like the smoke rising from photo cigarettes which gets a tad tiresome after the tenth occurrence.
But this is a very watchable and enjoyable rock down memory lane for 50-somethings and for any fans old and young of the Fab Four’s music. Highly Recommended. Note that the documentary itself is about 90 minutes in length, with another 30 minutes of live concert music tagged onto the end post-titles (which for travel reasons I was unfortunately unable to stay for so can’t comment on).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Nightmare Alley (2021) in Movies
Feb 4, 2022
Sum Does Not Add Up To The Total Of The Parts
If you ever want to understand the meaning of the term “the sum does not equal the total of the parts”, you need to look no further than the latest film from Guillermo Del Toro, the neo-noir thriller, NIGHTMARE ALLEY.
This film looked like it had all the right elements for a fantastic, adult film. A neo-noir thriller with a distinctive period look, helmed by a first rate director and featuring an A-List cast that are (for the most part) perfectly cast in their roles.
So why doesn’t this film rise above ordinary?
Ultimately, it is because this type of film, a neo-noir crime thriller where none of the characters are likeable or are easy to root for, is a tricky tightrope walk and, in this instance, Director del Toro opted to play it safe, focusing on mood and atmosphere, while strapping his talented cast with characters (and, ultimately, performances) that are middle-of-the road.
Bradley Cooper is the right performer in today’s world to play Stanton Carlisle, the drifter that becomes a carney that becomes a a con-man “Mentalist” who is drawn into a sinister plot by the mysterious Dr. Lilith Ritter (Cate Blanchett - also the right performer in today’s world to play this part). These 2 have decent (but not great) chemistry with each other, for you know (they way del Toro has Directed Blanchett’s performance) that she is up to something, thus keeping us at arm’s length.
But I am getting ahead of myself, for that is the 2nd half of this film, I haven’t even touched on the first half - which is part of the issue here as well.
The first hour of this 2 1/2 hour film is all set up as we follow Cooper’s character as he is introduced into a Circus sideshow of the 1940’s - and all of the characters therein. This is an interesting - if kind of slow - setup as we are treated to some interesting character building performances by some pretty terrific actors - Toni Colette, Ron Perlman, David Strathairn and, of course, the always good Willem DaFoe.
Oh, and I haven’t even mentioned Rooney Mara who is sort of the “through-line” between the 2 halves of this film, but her character is so vanilla, that one forgets her character event exists.
But…after an hour of setting up this world and these characters - the film pivots away from this area and goes to a whole different world…and a different plot. It is like a SuperHero Origin film where the first 1/2 of the film is the Origin and the 2nd half is the first adventure of said SuperHero.
And this just doesn’t work all that well in this film (even with a callback at the end), it is jarring and creates 2 different movies, neither of which rises above the average.
I lay the blame for all of this on Director Guillermo del Toro who appeared to be more interested in the look of this film (and the look is AMAZING) and just let the actors act, but not get in the way. The direction is bland, the performances are bland and the plot just doesn’t hold together.
Which is very disappointing, considering what “could have been”.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
This film looked like it had all the right elements for a fantastic, adult film. A neo-noir thriller with a distinctive period look, helmed by a first rate director and featuring an A-List cast that are (for the most part) perfectly cast in their roles.
So why doesn’t this film rise above ordinary?
Ultimately, it is because this type of film, a neo-noir crime thriller where none of the characters are likeable or are easy to root for, is a tricky tightrope walk and, in this instance, Director del Toro opted to play it safe, focusing on mood and atmosphere, while strapping his talented cast with characters (and, ultimately, performances) that are middle-of-the road.
Bradley Cooper is the right performer in today’s world to play Stanton Carlisle, the drifter that becomes a carney that becomes a a con-man “Mentalist” who is drawn into a sinister plot by the mysterious Dr. Lilith Ritter (Cate Blanchett - also the right performer in today’s world to play this part). These 2 have decent (but not great) chemistry with each other, for you know (they way del Toro has Directed Blanchett’s performance) that she is up to something, thus keeping us at arm’s length.
But I am getting ahead of myself, for that is the 2nd half of this film, I haven’t even touched on the first half - which is part of the issue here as well.
The first hour of this 2 1/2 hour film is all set up as we follow Cooper’s character as he is introduced into a Circus sideshow of the 1940’s - and all of the characters therein. This is an interesting - if kind of slow - setup as we are treated to some interesting character building performances by some pretty terrific actors - Toni Colette, Ron Perlman, David Strathairn and, of course, the always good Willem DaFoe.
Oh, and I haven’t even mentioned Rooney Mara who is sort of the “through-line” between the 2 halves of this film, but her character is so vanilla, that one forgets her character event exists.
But…after an hour of setting up this world and these characters - the film pivots away from this area and goes to a whole different world…and a different plot. It is like a SuperHero Origin film where the first 1/2 of the film is the Origin and the 2nd half is the first adventure of said SuperHero.
And this just doesn’t work all that well in this film (even with a callback at the end), it is jarring and creates 2 different movies, neither of which rises above the average.
I lay the blame for all of this on Director Guillermo del Toro who appeared to be more interested in the look of this film (and the look is AMAZING) and just let the actors act, but not get in the way. The direction is bland, the performances are bland and the plot just doesn’t hold together.
Which is very disappointing, considering what “could have been”.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Morbius (2022) in Movies
Jul 7, 2022
It's Not Bad...It's Stupid
“It’s not as bad as you heard”, is certainly the very definition of damning something with faint praise, but that is exactly the right thing to say about the 2022 Sony Comic Book Film Adaptation of MORBIUS.
Starring Jared Leto, MORBIUS follows the origin story - and first adventure - of Spiderman villain Morbius who, inexplicably, becomes the hero in this story.
While, ultimately, not a good film, there are some good things happening here, so let’s begin there.
The lead performance by Jared Leto as Dr. Michael Morbius is - very surprisingly - somewhat grounded in reality. Leto is not one to be subtle in his character choices (see HOUSE OF GUCCI) but in this one, he is (somewhat) reserved. It would have been easy for Leto to go over the top with this character, but he wisely chooses the opposite route…and it works. The always watchable Jared Harris (CHERNOBYL) is on-board in the “mentor” role while Tyrese Gibson and Al Madrigal bring some humor to the proceedings as “Agents” who are chasing after Morbius. The rest of the cast are benign - neither adding nor detracting from the proceedings - with the exception of Matt Smith (LAST NIGHT IN SOHO) who’s character is so badly written that he flounders under the weight of the absurdity of what his character is tasked with.
Trying to overcome the ridiculousness of the story is the Direction by Daniel Espinosa (the Denzel Washington action flick SAFE HOUSE). He moves the action along quickly, never really lingering on the absurdities of the events going on (and there are PLENTY of absurdities to avoid - more on that later) and Espinosa actually has an artistic vision of what he wanted to accomplish visually in this comic-book film, freezing many frames when the picture on the screen looked like a page from a graphic novel. It’s a smart choice for a film that can only be described as dumb.
And dumb this film is. I kept feeling any sense of common sense and reality slip away as this film - written by Matt Sazama and Burk Sharpless - quickly devolved into the absurd and ridiculous. One does have to suspend belief when watching Comic Book films (how else are we going to believe that a man can turn into a human spider) but in this case, the suspension is mighty - it is one of the dumbest films ever made (in terms of plot and situations) and that is saying something. The makers of this film really stretch the term “go with me here” as Morbius is constantly chasing and evolving and being chased in the most absurd ways throughout this film with special effects that add to the absurdity of the proceedings. To be fair, this film never falls into the “so bad it’s good” range, it hovers just above that line.
The end credits scenes start to setup a “Sinister Six” Spiderman film, so there is some hope for this - it would be interesting to see Leto’s Morbius team up with some other Spiderman villains (who’s names would be a spoiler), provided the script is better. There’s no way that it can be worse.
MORBIUS is not a bad film - it just will insult your intelligence.
Letter Grade: C
4 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Starring Jared Leto, MORBIUS follows the origin story - and first adventure - of Spiderman villain Morbius who, inexplicably, becomes the hero in this story.
While, ultimately, not a good film, there are some good things happening here, so let’s begin there.
The lead performance by Jared Leto as Dr. Michael Morbius is - very surprisingly - somewhat grounded in reality. Leto is not one to be subtle in his character choices (see HOUSE OF GUCCI) but in this one, he is (somewhat) reserved. It would have been easy for Leto to go over the top with this character, but he wisely chooses the opposite route…and it works. The always watchable Jared Harris (CHERNOBYL) is on-board in the “mentor” role while Tyrese Gibson and Al Madrigal bring some humor to the proceedings as “Agents” who are chasing after Morbius. The rest of the cast are benign - neither adding nor detracting from the proceedings - with the exception of Matt Smith (LAST NIGHT IN SOHO) who’s character is so badly written that he flounders under the weight of the absurdity of what his character is tasked with.
Trying to overcome the ridiculousness of the story is the Direction by Daniel Espinosa (the Denzel Washington action flick SAFE HOUSE). He moves the action along quickly, never really lingering on the absurdities of the events going on (and there are PLENTY of absurdities to avoid - more on that later) and Espinosa actually has an artistic vision of what he wanted to accomplish visually in this comic-book film, freezing many frames when the picture on the screen looked like a page from a graphic novel. It’s a smart choice for a film that can only be described as dumb.
And dumb this film is. I kept feeling any sense of common sense and reality slip away as this film - written by Matt Sazama and Burk Sharpless - quickly devolved into the absurd and ridiculous. One does have to suspend belief when watching Comic Book films (how else are we going to believe that a man can turn into a human spider) but in this case, the suspension is mighty - it is one of the dumbest films ever made (in terms of plot and situations) and that is saying something. The makers of this film really stretch the term “go with me here” as Morbius is constantly chasing and evolving and being chased in the most absurd ways throughout this film with special effects that add to the absurdity of the proceedings. To be fair, this film never falls into the “so bad it’s good” range, it hovers just above that line.
The end credits scenes start to setup a “Sinister Six” Spiderman film, so there is some hope for this - it would be interesting to see Leto’s Morbius team up with some other Spiderman villains (who’s names would be a spoiler), provided the script is better. There’s no way that it can be worse.
MORBIUS is not a bad film - it just will insult your intelligence.
Letter Grade: C
4 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Debbiereadsbook (1449 KP) rated Immersion Play (Leather and Lattes #1) in Books
May 10, 2024
Stunning intro into this new world!
I was gifted my copy of this book, that I write a review was not required.
BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT if you follow my reviews, you'll know I have a particular fondness for this author, having followed her for some time and I NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED to write a review to tell you about this book.
Because it's a cracker of a book! Full of love and smex and found families and disfunctional real families and all the geeky references that are McIntyre's trademark!
Micah runs from his home, literally in the middle of the night, back to San Fran and his previous college room-mate, Pixie. He lands the job at Whipped as barista, and is introduced to a world of kink. Parker is a Dom, a Daddy as well. But he refuses to let anyone into his heart after seeing what losing the love of his life did to his dad. Micah, though, gets under his skin and sneaks in. Knowing it can only end in heartbreak, they still embark on a rollercoaster of a relationship, til Micah pushes Parker away, and Parker has to make some difficult decisions.
What I loved about this was that it really did creep up on me! I was enjoying it, yes, but couldn't say I loved it. Then I have no idea what happened, who said what or anything, but I started to LOVE this book, I really did!
Whipped is a kink cafe, and the staff are extremely free with their affections and bodies. I liked that Micah knew this, and still went to that first play night with them all. He did some research too, and knew once he found out that Parker liked to spank, he wanted that, wanted Parker. I loved that parker was well aware that Micah was new to the screen, and led him accordingly, even if Micah was the brattiest brat he ever came across, and Micah really didn't know that about himself.
Scorching smexy scenes between Micah and Parker, with a connection rarely seen. Even for McIntyre, the connection runs deep and hot and I loved it!
As it is a kink cafe, there is lots of smexy scenes, and I loved the introduction to the staff and owners and their particular flavour of kink. I feel that all these people will have amazing tales to tell and I really look forward to them!
Micah and Parker's story has some difficult themes: death of a parent, withdrawl from life of another, obnoxious families, and all that entails. I loved how each topic was dealt with. Parker tries with his dad, he really does, but it's not until Parker lays it all out with his dad, that dad then tries too. Micah's family caused all his problems, caused him to run, but he always thought they would come round. It's not until his sister Eva, comes out to them, that they show their true colours and Micah decides enough is enough.
It's Eva who gets the next story, her and Pixie hit it right off when she visits Micah. I look forward to reading that book!!
I can't give it anything other than . . . .
5 full and shiny, and super smexy stars!
*same worded review will appear elsewhere
BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT if you follow my reviews, you'll know I have a particular fondness for this author, having followed her for some time and I NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED to write a review to tell you about this book.
Because it's a cracker of a book! Full of love and smex and found families and disfunctional real families and all the geeky references that are McIntyre's trademark!
Micah runs from his home, literally in the middle of the night, back to San Fran and his previous college room-mate, Pixie. He lands the job at Whipped as barista, and is introduced to a world of kink. Parker is a Dom, a Daddy as well. But he refuses to let anyone into his heart after seeing what losing the love of his life did to his dad. Micah, though, gets under his skin and sneaks in. Knowing it can only end in heartbreak, they still embark on a rollercoaster of a relationship, til Micah pushes Parker away, and Parker has to make some difficult decisions.
What I loved about this was that it really did creep up on me! I was enjoying it, yes, but couldn't say I loved it. Then I have no idea what happened, who said what or anything, but I started to LOVE this book, I really did!
Whipped is a kink cafe, and the staff are extremely free with their affections and bodies. I liked that Micah knew this, and still went to that first play night with them all. He did some research too, and knew once he found out that Parker liked to spank, he wanted that, wanted Parker. I loved that parker was well aware that Micah was new to the screen, and led him accordingly, even if Micah was the brattiest brat he ever came across, and Micah really didn't know that about himself.
Scorching smexy scenes between Micah and Parker, with a connection rarely seen. Even for McIntyre, the connection runs deep and hot and I loved it!
As it is a kink cafe, there is lots of smexy scenes, and I loved the introduction to the staff and owners and their particular flavour of kink. I feel that all these people will have amazing tales to tell and I really look forward to them!
Micah and Parker's story has some difficult themes: death of a parent, withdrawl from life of another, obnoxious families, and all that entails. I loved how each topic was dealt with. Parker tries with his dad, he really does, but it's not until Parker lays it all out with his dad, that dad then tries too. Micah's family caused all his problems, caused him to run, but he always thought they would come round. It's not until his sister Eva, comes out to them, that they show their true colours and Micah decides enough is enough.
It's Eva who gets the next story, her and Pixie hit it right off when she visits Micah. I look forward to reading that book!!
I can't give it anything other than . . . .
5 full and shiny, and super smexy stars!
*same worded review will appear elsewhere
Hadley (567 KP) rated Hannibal (Hannibal Lecter, #3) in Books
Apr 6, 2019
Written well (1 more)
Interesting characters
Contains spoilers, click to show
I was excited to read this book because Hannibal Lecter is one of my favorite fictional horror characters.
We get to follow Special Agent Clarice Starling through her troubles in the FBI,Hannibal Lecter's life while on the lamb (yes,that was intentional),one Italian detective's need for retribution,and a family's empire thirsty for revenge all inside of Harris' well-written 'Hannibal.'
The transition between this cast of characters is easily done with quick chapters,but Harris never loses a stride,keeping the momentum going from page to page.
The book begins with Special Agent Starling having made her place in the FBI. This soon becomes a controversy after a shootout pushes Starling into the headline spotlight,dubbed as the: Death Angel. Her career begins to fall apart,but not unnoticed by the one and only,Hannibal Lecter.
We meet a new and unforgettable character named Mason Verger. Verger is one of Lecter's earlier victims (pre-Silence of the Lambs),who survived and offers a high reward for the capture of his attacker. Verger is a memorable character --- "Mason Verger,noseless and lipless,with no soft tissue on his face,was all teeth,like a creature of the deep,deep ocean. Inured as we are to masks,the shock in seeing him is delayed. Shock comes with the recognition that this is a human face with a mind behind it. It churns you with its movement,the articulation of the jaw,the turning of the eye to see you. To see your normal face." But finding out the things he had done during his lifetime stays with the reader.
"I'm not ashamed anymore.I'll tell you about anything. It's all okay now. I got a walk on those trumped-up molestation counts if I did five hundred hours of community service,worked at the dog pound and got therapy from Dr. Lecter."
Even I couldn't blame Lecter for what he did to Mason.
"He went over to the mirror I looked at myself in,and kicked the bottom of it and took out a shard. I was flying. He came over and gave me the piece of glass and looked me in the eyes and suggested I might like to peel off my face with it."
Although most would have a revelation after such an attack,Mason continues to be the person he had always been,especially towards the children in his family's 'day care.'
"Do you know what will happen to Kitty Cat? The policemen will take Kitty Cat to the pound and a doctor there will give her a shot. Did you get a shot at day care? Did the nurse give you a shot? With a shiny needle? They'll give Kitty Cat a shot. She'll be so scared when she sees the needle. They'll stick it in and Kitty Cat will hurt and die."
Another interesting character we meet is named Rinaldo Pazzi,an Inspector in Florence,Italy. Pazzi is well known for working high profile cases,including the infamous serial killer,Il Mostro. It is Pazzi who identifies Lecter hiding in Florence. He makes a deal with Verger to help capture him for a nice lump sum,but at the chance of being killed by Lecter.
Eventually,we get a small insight into Lecter's psychological makeup by reliving the death of his sister,Mischa. This memory plays on and off throughout the rest of the book,but it's the only glimpse the reader gets into the dark side of Lecter's mind palace.
Harris beautifully transitioned from 'Silence of the Lambs' to 'Hannibal,' keeping readers on their toes from chapter to chapter. Interesting and dark characters intertwine to bring an end to Hannibal Lecter's series ('Hannibal Rising' is a prequel detailing Lecter's life as a young man).
I wouldn't say that you HAVE to read 'Silence of the Lambs' to understand the book 'Hannibal.' Harris did a great job of reminiscing over events that happened in 'Silence . . ." Yet,having read 'Silence. . .,' I will say you would get a better picture of Hannibal and Starling's view of one another,which would make the ending of 'Hannibal' make more sense to the reader.
Overall,I enjoyed 'Hannibal' more than 'Silence of the Lambs.' I find Starling's maturity in 'Hannibal' refreshing compared to her insecurities in 'Silence. . .' The book is very fluid,but a heavy read - this is not a read-in-a-day kind of book (484 pages). I found myself stopping and allowing what I read to settle in because it just seemed the right thing to do. My only annoyance was that during the entire part two that takes place in Florence,there is a lot of Italian being used without an english translation (I am not fluent,not even a little,so all of those sentences went right over my head). I feel like I may have missed out on some dialogue because of this.
We get to follow Special Agent Clarice Starling through her troubles in the FBI,Hannibal Lecter's life while on the lamb (yes,that was intentional),one Italian detective's need for retribution,and a family's empire thirsty for revenge all inside of Harris' well-written 'Hannibal.'
The transition between this cast of characters is easily done with quick chapters,but Harris never loses a stride,keeping the momentum going from page to page.
The book begins with Special Agent Starling having made her place in the FBI. This soon becomes a controversy after a shootout pushes Starling into the headline spotlight,dubbed as the: Death Angel. Her career begins to fall apart,but not unnoticed by the one and only,Hannibal Lecter.
We meet a new and unforgettable character named Mason Verger. Verger is one of Lecter's earlier victims (pre-Silence of the Lambs),who survived and offers a high reward for the capture of his attacker. Verger is a memorable character --- "Mason Verger,noseless and lipless,with no soft tissue on his face,was all teeth,like a creature of the deep,deep ocean. Inured as we are to masks,the shock in seeing him is delayed. Shock comes with the recognition that this is a human face with a mind behind it. It churns you with its movement,the articulation of the jaw,the turning of the eye to see you. To see your normal face." But finding out the things he had done during his lifetime stays with the reader.
"I'm not ashamed anymore.I'll tell you about anything. It's all okay now. I got a walk on those trumped-up molestation counts if I did five hundred hours of community service,worked at the dog pound and got therapy from Dr. Lecter."
Even I couldn't blame Lecter for what he did to Mason.
"He went over to the mirror I looked at myself in,and kicked the bottom of it and took out a shard. I was flying. He came over and gave me the piece of glass and looked me in the eyes and suggested I might like to peel off my face with it."
Although most would have a revelation after such an attack,Mason continues to be the person he had always been,especially towards the children in his family's 'day care.'
"Do you know what will happen to Kitty Cat? The policemen will take Kitty Cat to the pound and a doctor there will give her a shot. Did you get a shot at day care? Did the nurse give you a shot? With a shiny needle? They'll give Kitty Cat a shot. She'll be so scared when she sees the needle. They'll stick it in and Kitty Cat will hurt and die."
Another interesting character we meet is named Rinaldo Pazzi,an Inspector in Florence,Italy. Pazzi is well known for working high profile cases,including the infamous serial killer,Il Mostro. It is Pazzi who identifies Lecter hiding in Florence. He makes a deal with Verger to help capture him for a nice lump sum,but at the chance of being killed by Lecter.
Eventually,we get a small insight into Lecter's psychological makeup by reliving the death of his sister,Mischa. This memory plays on and off throughout the rest of the book,but it's the only glimpse the reader gets into the dark side of Lecter's mind palace.
Harris beautifully transitioned from 'Silence of the Lambs' to 'Hannibal,' keeping readers on their toes from chapter to chapter. Interesting and dark characters intertwine to bring an end to Hannibal Lecter's series ('Hannibal Rising' is a prequel detailing Lecter's life as a young man).
I wouldn't say that you HAVE to read 'Silence of the Lambs' to understand the book 'Hannibal.' Harris did a great job of reminiscing over events that happened in 'Silence . . ." Yet,having read 'Silence. . .,' I will say you would get a better picture of Hannibal and Starling's view of one another,which would make the ending of 'Hannibal' make more sense to the reader.
Overall,I enjoyed 'Hannibal' more than 'Silence of the Lambs.' I find Starling's maturity in 'Hannibal' refreshing compared to her insecurities in 'Silence. . .' The book is very fluid,but a heavy read - this is not a read-in-a-day kind of book (484 pages). I found myself stopping and allowing what I read to settle in because it just seemed the right thing to do. My only annoyance was that during the entire part two that takes place in Florence,there is a lot of Italian being used without an english translation (I am not fluent,not even a little,so all of those sentences went right over my head). I feel like I may have missed out on some dialogue because of this.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Iron Lady (2012) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Meryl Streep certainly has an impressive roster of films under her belt. She’s reduced Anne Hathaway to tears in The Devil Wears Prada, she’s played the role of struggling hotelier in the all singing, all dancing Mamma Mia and has racked up an astonishing 16 Oscar nominations for films like Kramer vs. Kramer and Sophie’s Choice. However, here, she perhaps takes on her biggest role to date portraying arguably the most controversial figure in British politics; Baroness Thatcher. Can she pull it off? Did you really need to ask?
Streep teams up with Mammia Mia director Phyllida Lloyd in the Iron Lady, a biopic surrounding the life of ex-Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher and between the two of them and a wonderful supporting cast, deliver a stunning but disappointingly safe take on the 86 year olds life.
The film opens with a frail looking woman wandering the streets and buying a bottle of milk, we soon learn that this woman is of course, Baroness Thatcher. After a thought provoking moment of silence, the scene is switched to her current home where she is kept under lock and key, struggling with ever worsening dementia. Her constant conversations with dead husband Dennis, played fabulously by Jim Broadbent are emotional and form the basis of the entire film.
It is in these scenes that we begin to ‘study’ Thatcher’s life from her youth right up until the present day. We see her refusing to give up after failing to gain a seat in the 1950 and 1951 general elections as well as her first steps into Number 10 as the first ever female Prime Minister. Lloyd displays these moments with great finesse and integrates Streep’s portrayal with real footage of Thatcher walking into 10 Downing Street amongst other key moments.
Most of the major events in Margaret’s career are carried over into the film, bar a few notable exceptions. The Grand Hotel bombing, the Falklands war, the death of Thatcher’s personal assistant at the hands of the IRA and of course the controversial Poll Tax all make the grade but are explained in a way that isn’t damaging to the reputation of the Baroness and this is perhaps where the film loses its way a little.
There’ll be no prizes in telling you that Margaret Thatcher was either a fantastic woman who turned around the fates of a country struggling with recession or a woman who nearly destroyed everything we hold dear; depending obviously on your thoughts of her. No matter what thoughts we all have, opinions are opinions. Here, however, the film tries to make up the minds of those watching, rather than allowing an opinion to form on its own and this is perhaps the biggest problem with a political biopic, there is always a sense of bias.
Fortunately, Lloyd stays on the right side of mass appeal and doesn’t give in to mindless brown-nosing.
It is in the films present day moments that really shine. Seeing a woman who wanted to change the world struggle to cope with the loss of her husband and fall into dementia is, no matter what your opinion on the ex-Prime Minister, heart-breaking. It is here, that sympathy is found.
Streep’s performance is stunning to say the least and she is a joy to watch. Her transgression from young, enthusiastic Thatcher to the old and frail woman we see today is yes, in part down to the astonishing make-up given to her throughout but mainly because of her ability as an actress. She, like the lady herself takes charge of every scene she is a part of, something which many actresses struggle to do. Streep may have had her critics in being cast for this film, but she has proved them wrong. It will be a crime if she isn’t nominated for an Oscar this year.
Of the films other cast, Olivia Colman does well as Margaret’s daughter Carole and as mentioned previously, Jim Broadbent is brilliant as the deceased Dennis Thatcher; he fits the role perfectly and again should be nominated for an Oscar later this year. The supporting cast includes the likes of Anthony Head as Geoffrey Howe and Nicholas Farrell as Thatcher’s murdered assistant Airey Neave, but the scenes with these characters are often overshadowed by Streep’s presence.
The Iron Lady is a joy to behold. It makes you proud to be British, to know that we as a country can produce films of this calibre and it shows the world just what a woman Margaret Thatcher was. In the scenes showing Thatcher’s spiral into dementia is where it becomes most touching, but throughout, we get a full, if slightly biased view of her 11 and a half years in office and Meryl Streep does the old girl proud.
Think what you will of the former Conservative leader, but The Iron Lady is worth a watch for Streep’s performance alone.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/01/12/review-the-iron-lady-2011/
Streep teams up with Mammia Mia director Phyllida Lloyd in the Iron Lady, a biopic surrounding the life of ex-Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher and between the two of them and a wonderful supporting cast, deliver a stunning but disappointingly safe take on the 86 year olds life.
The film opens with a frail looking woman wandering the streets and buying a bottle of milk, we soon learn that this woman is of course, Baroness Thatcher. After a thought provoking moment of silence, the scene is switched to her current home where she is kept under lock and key, struggling with ever worsening dementia. Her constant conversations with dead husband Dennis, played fabulously by Jim Broadbent are emotional and form the basis of the entire film.
It is in these scenes that we begin to ‘study’ Thatcher’s life from her youth right up until the present day. We see her refusing to give up after failing to gain a seat in the 1950 and 1951 general elections as well as her first steps into Number 10 as the first ever female Prime Minister. Lloyd displays these moments with great finesse and integrates Streep’s portrayal with real footage of Thatcher walking into 10 Downing Street amongst other key moments.
Most of the major events in Margaret’s career are carried over into the film, bar a few notable exceptions. The Grand Hotel bombing, the Falklands war, the death of Thatcher’s personal assistant at the hands of the IRA and of course the controversial Poll Tax all make the grade but are explained in a way that isn’t damaging to the reputation of the Baroness and this is perhaps where the film loses its way a little.
There’ll be no prizes in telling you that Margaret Thatcher was either a fantastic woman who turned around the fates of a country struggling with recession or a woman who nearly destroyed everything we hold dear; depending obviously on your thoughts of her. No matter what thoughts we all have, opinions are opinions. Here, however, the film tries to make up the minds of those watching, rather than allowing an opinion to form on its own and this is perhaps the biggest problem with a political biopic, there is always a sense of bias.
Fortunately, Lloyd stays on the right side of mass appeal and doesn’t give in to mindless brown-nosing.
It is in the films present day moments that really shine. Seeing a woman who wanted to change the world struggle to cope with the loss of her husband and fall into dementia is, no matter what your opinion on the ex-Prime Minister, heart-breaking. It is here, that sympathy is found.
Streep’s performance is stunning to say the least and she is a joy to watch. Her transgression from young, enthusiastic Thatcher to the old and frail woman we see today is yes, in part down to the astonishing make-up given to her throughout but mainly because of her ability as an actress. She, like the lady herself takes charge of every scene she is a part of, something which many actresses struggle to do. Streep may have had her critics in being cast for this film, but she has proved them wrong. It will be a crime if she isn’t nominated for an Oscar this year.
Of the films other cast, Olivia Colman does well as Margaret’s daughter Carole and as mentioned previously, Jim Broadbent is brilliant as the deceased Dennis Thatcher; he fits the role perfectly and again should be nominated for an Oscar later this year. The supporting cast includes the likes of Anthony Head as Geoffrey Howe and Nicholas Farrell as Thatcher’s murdered assistant Airey Neave, but the scenes with these characters are often overshadowed by Streep’s presence.
The Iron Lady is a joy to behold. It makes you proud to be British, to know that we as a country can produce films of this calibre and it shows the world just what a woman Margaret Thatcher was. In the scenes showing Thatcher’s spiral into dementia is where it becomes most touching, but throughout, we get a full, if slightly biased view of her 11 and a half years in office and Meryl Streep does the old girl proud.
Think what you will of the former Conservative leader, but The Iron Lady is worth a watch for Streep’s performance alone.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/01/12/review-the-iron-lady-2011/