Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Greatest Showman (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
This IS the Greatest Show!
I sometimes wonder how “proper” UK film critics view films early for review. Is there a ‘special screening’ which all the film critics attend in London? The point I’m getting at is whether the collective critical opinion of a movie can be swayed by a critic leaping to their feet and wildly applauding a film like “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” or, alternatively, snorting in derision at a film like “The Greatest Showman”. For sometimes the critics seem to get it massively wrong across the board, panning a film that the general public will adore. Unfortunately, this has the effect of putting the general public off seeing it, especially in the lethargic post-Christmas period. I think here is a case in point. It’s not the best little film in the world, but as a musical crowd-pleaser it delivers in spades.
Will you like “The Greatest Showman”? This will be dictated almost entirely by whether you are a “musicals” person or not! For “The Greatest Showman” is a frothy, very loud, cheesy and high-energy musical, much more aligned, in fact, to the mainstream genre from the 40’s and 50’s than “La La Land” was.
Roll up, roll up. The circus cast entertain.
In a VERY loose interpretation of the early life of Phineas Taylor Barnum, the American huckster and impressario, we start the story with a pre-pubescent Barnum (Ellis Rubin, sung by Ziv Zaifman) as a young tailor’s assistant punching above his weight with young socialite Charity (Skylar Dunn), firmly against the wishes of her father. Spin forward (via song) and the hitched Barnum’s – now Hugh Jackman (“Logan“) and Michelle Williams (“Manchester By The Sea“) – are barely scraping a living. But Barnum has “A Million Dreams” and hits on the novel idea of opening an entertainment (coined “a circus” by journalist James Gordon Bennett (Paul Sparks)) where he offers both respect and a family to those of the city who are deformed, rejected and socially shunned. Barnum’s show is shockingly entertaining – as in both filling seats and shocking the morally-self-righteous upper classes. But never one to rest on his laurels, Barnum’s endless ambition drives him to break his social ceiling by importing the “Swedish songbird”, opera singer Jenny Lind (Rebecca Ferguson, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “The Snowman“) ), for an ambitious and extravegant tour of the States. All does not exactly go to plan.
Washing day tunes. Hugh Jackman and Michelle Williams take to the rooftops.
As I’ve said, most critics have been making sniffy noises about this film. But I am not one of them…. I LOVED IT, have already bought the glorious soundtrack album and will be looking forwards to the DVD release. For this is joy in a box. Sure, the story is a bit weak, the characterisations of everyone (other than Barnum) pretty lightweight, but it’s a musical extravaganza! Live with it!
Hugh Jackman, who of course started his career in stage musicals, is marvellously charismatic as Barnum although his singing does tend to the “shouty” end of the scale in many of the numbers. He’s joined here by fellow musicals star Zac Efron (let’s forget “Dirty Grandpa“) as the fictitious Phillip Carlyle: a socialite playwright and partner.
But the acting and singing revelation for me was Zendaya (“Spider-Man: Homecoming“) as Efron’s (scandalous) inter-racial love interest, who has a fantastically athletic body, sings and dances wonderfully and has a magnetic stare. A marvellous trapeze routine between Efron and Zendaya (“Rewrite The Stars”) is one of the high-spots of the film for me.
An energetic dance. Zendaya and Efron take to the skies.
Elsewhere Williams proves she has a singing voice as well as being a top flight actress and the bearded lady (Broadway star Keala Settle) belts out one of the show-stopping numbers “This is Me” (although she is a little ‘shrill’ for my musical tastes).
It would be nice to extend that compliment to the wonderful Rebecca Ferguson as the “greatest singer in the world” – but she is (wisely I think) dubbed here by Loren Allred (a finalist on the US version of “The Voice”). It is a bit of a shock when “the great opera singer” opens her mouth and a modern love song comes out, but once you get over that then the combination of Ferguson’s acting and Allred’s singing makes “Never Enough” one of the standout songs in the movie. (It’s been described as “a bit Eurovision” by Kevin Maher, “The Times” critic, which I can see but I don’t care! I find it marvellously moving).
A dangerous songbird’s nest for the married Barnum. Rebecca Ferguson and Hugh Jackman.
If you haven’t guessed it, there are some fantastic songs in this movie, written by “La La Land” song composers Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and at least one of these surely must be Oscar nominated (I’m not sure what the cut-off would be for the 2018 Oscars?).
There’s also a lot of talent in the backroom with production design and memorable costumes. Where I’d single out particular praise though is in the choreography and the editing on show.
Firstly, the choreography of “beats” in the song to the action on screen is brilliantly done, done, probably at its most impressive in a shot-glass bar-room scene between Jackman and Efron. And never (hats off to the special effects guys and cinematographer Seamus McGarvey) have you seen washing on a washing line so cleverly in time with the music.
Secondly in terms of the film editing, I am a sucker for clever “transition” shots, and there are some in this movie that just took my breath away: a transition to a pregnant Charity; a transition from ballet practice to ballet performance; there are numerous others!
Inverted magnetism. Zendaya as the trapeze artist Anne Wheeler.
I have decided to park some of my minor criticisms within the greater joy of the whole: some of the dialogue (by Jenny Bicks and Bill Condon) is as cheesy as hell, but probably no more so than in some of the Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney musicals. Where I had my biggest problem is in some of the lip synching to the songs. This is an age where the live recording of songs in films like “Les Miserables” and “La La Land” has set the bar high, and returning to the norm (I had the same problem with “Beauty and the Beast“) becomes noticeable and irritating to me. (Perhaps this is just me!).
It’s certainly not a perfect film, but its energy and drive carry it through as a memorable movie musical that may well take on a life of its own as word-of-mouth gets it more widely viewed (outside of the rather difficult Christmas holiday season). It would also be a good film for youngsters, with a bit of judicious editing (there is one moment of violence in the first 10 minutes that I would choose to edit out). From my perspective it is certainly a truly impressive debut for advert director Michael Gracey. Recommended for musical fans.
Will you like “The Greatest Showman”? This will be dictated almost entirely by whether you are a “musicals” person or not! For “The Greatest Showman” is a frothy, very loud, cheesy and high-energy musical, much more aligned, in fact, to the mainstream genre from the 40’s and 50’s than “La La Land” was.
Roll up, roll up. The circus cast entertain.
In a VERY loose interpretation of the early life of Phineas Taylor Barnum, the American huckster and impressario, we start the story with a pre-pubescent Barnum (Ellis Rubin, sung by Ziv Zaifman) as a young tailor’s assistant punching above his weight with young socialite Charity (Skylar Dunn), firmly against the wishes of her father. Spin forward (via song) and the hitched Barnum’s – now Hugh Jackman (“Logan“) and Michelle Williams (“Manchester By The Sea“) – are barely scraping a living. But Barnum has “A Million Dreams” and hits on the novel idea of opening an entertainment (coined “a circus” by journalist James Gordon Bennett (Paul Sparks)) where he offers both respect and a family to those of the city who are deformed, rejected and socially shunned. Barnum’s show is shockingly entertaining – as in both filling seats and shocking the morally-self-righteous upper classes. But never one to rest on his laurels, Barnum’s endless ambition drives him to break his social ceiling by importing the “Swedish songbird”, opera singer Jenny Lind (Rebecca Ferguson, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “The Snowman“) ), for an ambitious and extravegant tour of the States. All does not exactly go to plan.
Washing day tunes. Hugh Jackman and Michelle Williams take to the rooftops.
As I’ve said, most critics have been making sniffy noises about this film. But I am not one of them…. I LOVED IT, have already bought the glorious soundtrack album and will be looking forwards to the DVD release. For this is joy in a box. Sure, the story is a bit weak, the characterisations of everyone (other than Barnum) pretty lightweight, but it’s a musical extravaganza! Live with it!
Hugh Jackman, who of course started his career in stage musicals, is marvellously charismatic as Barnum although his singing does tend to the “shouty” end of the scale in many of the numbers. He’s joined here by fellow musicals star Zac Efron (let’s forget “Dirty Grandpa“) as the fictitious Phillip Carlyle: a socialite playwright and partner.
But the acting and singing revelation for me was Zendaya (“Spider-Man: Homecoming“) as Efron’s (scandalous) inter-racial love interest, who has a fantastically athletic body, sings and dances wonderfully and has a magnetic stare. A marvellous trapeze routine between Efron and Zendaya (“Rewrite The Stars”) is one of the high-spots of the film for me.
An energetic dance. Zendaya and Efron take to the skies.
Elsewhere Williams proves she has a singing voice as well as being a top flight actress and the bearded lady (Broadway star Keala Settle) belts out one of the show-stopping numbers “This is Me” (although she is a little ‘shrill’ for my musical tastes).
It would be nice to extend that compliment to the wonderful Rebecca Ferguson as the “greatest singer in the world” – but she is (wisely I think) dubbed here by Loren Allred (a finalist on the US version of “The Voice”). It is a bit of a shock when “the great opera singer” opens her mouth and a modern love song comes out, but once you get over that then the combination of Ferguson’s acting and Allred’s singing makes “Never Enough” one of the standout songs in the movie. (It’s been described as “a bit Eurovision” by Kevin Maher, “The Times” critic, which I can see but I don’t care! I find it marvellously moving).
A dangerous songbird’s nest for the married Barnum. Rebecca Ferguson and Hugh Jackman.
If you haven’t guessed it, there are some fantastic songs in this movie, written by “La La Land” song composers Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and at least one of these surely must be Oscar nominated (I’m not sure what the cut-off would be for the 2018 Oscars?).
There’s also a lot of talent in the backroom with production design and memorable costumes. Where I’d single out particular praise though is in the choreography and the editing on show.
Firstly, the choreography of “beats” in the song to the action on screen is brilliantly done, done, probably at its most impressive in a shot-glass bar-room scene between Jackman and Efron. And never (hats off to the special effects guys and cinematographer Seamus McGarvey) have you seen washing on a washing line so cleverly in time with the music.
Secondly in terms of the film editing, I am a sucker for clever “transition” shots, and there are some in this movie that just took my breath away: a transition to a pregnant Charity; a transition from ballet practice to ballet performance; there are numerous others!
Inverted magnetism. Zendaya as the trapeze artist Anne Wheeler.
I have decided to park some of my minor criticisms within the greater joy of the whole: some of the dialogue (by Jenny Bicks and Bill Condon) is as cheesy as hell, but probably no more so than in some of the Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney musicals. Where I had my biggest problem is in some of the lip synching to the songs. This is an age where the live recording of songs in films like “Les Miserables” and “La La Land” has set the bar high, and returning to the norm (I had the same problem with “Beauty and the Beast“) becomes noticeable and irritating to me. (Perhaps this is just me!).
It’s certainly not a perfect film, but its energy and drive carry it through as a memorable movie musical that may well take on a life of its own as word-of-mouth gets it more widely viewed (outside of the rather difficult Christmas holiday season). It would also be a good film for youngsters, with a bit of judicious editing (there is one moment of violence in the first 10 minutes that I would choose to edit out). From my perspective it is certainly a truly impressive debut for advert director Michael Gracey. Recommended for musical fans.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Captain Marvel (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Midnight screening... what was I thinking? Somehow I managed to stay awake in the cinema (others didn't fare so well), but I went in pretty pumped up. Not so much for the film but the overall atmosphere of a Marvel first screening. There were over 100 tickets pre-booked, and the cinema was certainly very busy. There's something about the buzz of an audience that big. I did try and hold a couple of conversations while I was there, they were not successful due to my brain's impaired state.
*sigh*
Let me just get this out now... I enjoyed this movie, but I also didn't like it. I know, what does that even mean? I'm going to waffle a bit and hopefully it'll become clear.
I don't have a lot of pre-knowledge about Captain Marvel, in fact, until the trailers started coming out I'd probably have asked if you meant Ms Marvel or Shazam. As always the similarities between characters and brand is a complete mess.
Brie Larson had some pretty big boots to fill as the MCU's first headlining female character. I feel a bit sorry for Black Widow to be honest, but this is probably a bit lighter than her offering would have been considering her background.
Watching the trailers for this I wasn't left wowed. Vers comes across as rather cocky and after seeing the film I don't think she needed to be that way. Part of me thinks that a difference actress would have played it better, but mainly I'm just happy that they didn't ruin it.
Samuel L. Jackson was a treat, but then when isn't he?! It was nice seeing this more light-hearted side of his character. It leaves us with a little gap in his history that makes me wonder what happened to him. As ever he's a great presence and shows us just a glimpse of what's to come (or rather what we've already seen) while still being funny.
Ben Mendelsohn has made a rather large splash over the last few years in big-ticket movies. Rogue One, Ready Player One, Robin Hood and now Captain Marvel. His character of Talos is comical and warm but I found it slightly strange hearing him with his normal accent. That seems even weirder when I write it down, I guess I'm just hardwired to expect most aliens to sound American! He's definitely my stand out actor in this, he handles the twists and turns of the story wonderfully and made for an incredible surprise. There was one moment with a terrible bit of script that made me cringe at the screen but everything else made up for it.
I probably need to say something about Jude Law, that something is going to be "meh". I'm not sure that I'm fuzzed by any of his roles historically, and this isn't really any different. He also suffered from a dubious bit of script near the end of the film that feels out of place, but I'll leave that one for you to contemplate on.
I know I've been a bit of a mix so far about Captain Marvel but there are a lot of things to like about this movie. In particular, Marvel have really nailed music on the head recently, Guardians Of The Galaxy (1 not 2) and Thor: Ragnarok being two of my favourites. There's that moment of joy when you hear those old tunes, a smile crept across my face for every one of them. It was a great selection and they fitted into place amongst the story so well.
Nostalgia value is high in this one. Ahh, Blockbuster, I do miss you. There are plenty of things to spot, I'm sure that someone has already created a bingo game to go along with it... or a drinking game, "cry into your drink uncontrollably when you see Stan Lee". We obviously knew he'd filmed some cameos before he moved on into his big ol' galaxy, it was lovely to see him smiling out at us. Not only was it a fun little cameo but Marvel also did something magical with those opening titles and it made me cry... don't judge me!! I didn't cry as much as I did during the credit tribute in Once Upon A Deadpool though.
I could keep waffling, I'm fully aware that I've gone on a lot longer than normal about this one. I'll try not to keep you too much longer.
Obviously they've used some artistic license with the characters from the comics, as they do. The Skrull minions are so close to the comics, I was a little dubious about them when they popped up but they're carbon copies. The main thing that I know they changed was Nick Fury's eye, this version is better than the comics. I'd be interested to know how SLJ felt about finally being able to play Fury with both his eyes.
De-aging was used again but with much heavier usage than we've seen before. It was a bold choice doing it on one of the main characters when he's got so much screen time but I'm glad they chose this over recasting him. There weren't any of the minor oddities that were visible during Ant-Man & The Wasp's use of it, it all looked quite natural. There's no denying that Coulson might be a little overdone but *squeeeeee* little Coulson is so adorable that I don't care!
I mentioned my issues with Vers in the trailers, that wasn't the only misgiving I had. There weren't as many as the "I'm never going to see this movie" crowd (you know you're going to see it, get ahold of yourselves) but there were a few.
We've been with this series for over 10 years, this film leads into the last film in the sequence... and now they're giving us a new character? That's what I have an issue with. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea that they're bringing in a female character to clear up the mess created by the (mainly) boy's club, it's art imitating life... I'm joking, partly... but I can't help feeling like this is more of a last minute add-on. Previous new additions have appeared in other films, they've been able to interact with characters. The whole way through we've been shown teamwork and camaraderie, and throwing Captain Marvel in at the last minute flies in the face of that. But if we'd had her around before this then we probably wouldn't have needed Endgame because there would have been no distractions from what needed to be done. (Before you start on me we see that for a fact, none of Thor and Starlord's nonsense.)
For all of my waffling about it feeling separate they have clearly tried to connect her to the existing MCU. There are links in there on multiple fronts which give you hints at other films, it's quite impressive that they managed to make this without it being filled with series continuity errors.
As my last parting comment I want to say that Goose was amazing. Sadly not so hot on the CGI, I did wonder at one point if he was going to jump up and dance Garfield-style at one point. Annoyingly I already knew some details about this fluffy character before seeing the film but it just left me with anticipation. I didn't think that Fury would be a cat person though.
What you should do
If you're a Marvel fan you're going to have to see it before Endgame, but quite frankly you should want to see it. You could skip it if you really want to... but do you want to risk it? No, I didn't think so.
REMEMBER: There are two credit scenes, one in the middle and one at the end.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Of all the things I'd have to say Goose, that cute little floof would brighten my day as well as coming in handy for several reasons.
*sigh*
Let me just get this out now... I enjoyed this movie, but I also didn't like it. I know, what does that even mean? I'm going to waffle a bit and hopefully it'll become clear.
I don't have a lot of pre-knowledge about Captain Marvel, in fact, until the trailers started coming out I'd probably have asked if you meant Ms Marvel or Shazam. As always the similarities between characters and brand is a complete mess.
Brie Larson had some pretty big boots to fill as the MCU's first headlining female character. I feel a bit sorry for Black Widow to be honest, but this is probably a bit lighter than her offering would have been considering her background.
Watching the trailers for this I wasn't left wowed. Vers comes across as rather cocky and after seeing the film I don't think she needed to be that way. Part of me thinks that a difference actress would have played it better, but mainly I'm just happy that they didn't ruin it.
Samuel L. Jackson was a treat, but then when isn't he?! It was nice seeing this more light-hearted side of his character. It leaves us with a little gap in his history that makes me wonder what happened to him. As ever he's a great presence and shows us just a glimpse of what's to come (or rather what we've already seen) while still being funny.
Ben Mendelsohn has made a rather large splash over the last few years in big-ticket movies. Rogue One, Ready Player One, Robin Hood and now Captain Marvel. His character of Talos is comical and warm but I found it slightly strange hearing him with his normal accent. That seems even weirder when I write it down, I guess I'm just hardwired to expect most aliens to sound American! He's definitely my stand out actor in this, he handles the twists and turns of the story wonderfully and made for an incredible surprise. There was one moment with a terrible bit of script that made me cringe at the screen but everything else made up for it.
I probably need to say something about Jude Law, that something is going to be "meh". I'm not sure that I'm fuzzed by any of his roles historically, and this isn't really any different. He also suffered from a dubious bit of script near the end of the film that feels out of place, but I'll leave that one for you to contemplate on.
I know I've been a bit of a mix so far about Captain Marvel but there are a lot of things to like about this movie. In particular, Marvel have really nailed music on the head recently, Guardians Of The Galaxy (1 not 2) and Thor: Ragnarok being two of my favourites. There's that moment of joy when you hear those old tunes, a smile crept across my face for every one of them. It was a great selection and they fitted into place amongst the story so well.
Nostalgia value is high in this one. Ahh, Blockbuster, I do miss you. There are plenty of things to spot, I'm sure that someone has already created a bingo game to go along with it... or a drinking game, "cry into your drink uncontrollably when you see Stan Lee". We obviously knew he'd filmed some cameos before he moved on into his big ol' galaxy, it was lovely to see him smiling out at us. Not only was it a fun little cameo but Marvel also did something magical with those opening titles and it made me cry... don't judge me!! I didn't cry as much as I did during the credit tribute in Once Upon A Deadpool though.
I could keep waffling, I'm fully aware that I've gone on a lot longer than normal about this one. I'll try not to keep you too much longer.
Obviously they've used some artistic license with the characters from the comics, as they do. The Skrull minions are so close to the comics, I was a little dubious about them when they popped up but they're carbon copies. The main thing that I know they changed was Nick Fury's eye, this version is better than the comics. I'd be interested to know how SLJ felt about finally being able to play Fury with both his eyes.
De-aging was used again but with much heavier usage than we've seen before. It was a bold choice doing it on one of the main characters when he's got so much screen time but I'm glad they chose this over recasting him. There weren't any of the minor oddities that were visible during Ant-Man & The Wasp's use of it, it all looked quite natural. There's no denying that Coulson might be a little overdone but *squeeeeee* little Coulson is so adorable that I don't care!
I mentioned my issues with Vers in the trailers, that wasn't the only misgiving I had. There weren't as many as the "I'm never going to see this movie" crowd (you know you're going to see it, get ahold of yourselves) but there were a few.
We've been with this series for over 10 years, this film leads into the last film in the sequence... and now they're giving us a new character? That's what I have an issue with. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea that they're bringing in a female character to clear up the mess created by the (mainly) boy's club, it's art imitating life... I'm joking, partly... but I can't help feeling like this is more of a last minute add-on. Previous new additions have appeared in other films, they've been able to interact with characters. The whole way through we've been shown teamwork and camaraderie, and throwing Captain Marvel in at the last minute flies in the face of that. But if we'd had her around before this then we probably wouldn't have needed Endgame because there would have been no distractions from what needed to be done. (Before you start on me we see that for a fact, none of Thor and Starlord's nonsense.)
For all of my waffling about it feeling separate they have clearly tried to connect her to the existing MCU. There are links in there on multiple fronts which give you hints at other films, it's quite impressive that they managed to make this without it being filled with series continuity errors.
As my last parting comment I want to say that Goose was amazing. Sadly not so hot on the CGI, I did wonder at one point if he was going to jump up and dance Garfield-style at one point. Annoyingly I already knew some details about this fluffy character before seeing the film but it just left me with anticipation. I didn't think that Fury would be a cat person though.
What you should do
If you're a Marvel fan you're going to have to see it before Endgame, but quite frankly you should want to see it. You could skip it if you really want to... but do you want to risk it? No, I didn't think so.
REMEMBER: There are two credit scenes, one in the middle and one at the end.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Of all the things I'd have to say Goose, that cute little floof would brighten my day as well as coming in handy for several reasons.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 26, 2019
Leonardo DiCaprio (1 more)
Brad Pitt
It's 2 hours and 41 minutes and feels long. (2 more)
Story elements don't seem to go together.
Charles Manson stuff feels forced.
With Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood being his ninth feature film as writer and director and a career just shy of the three decade mark, you should probably know what to expect from a Quentin Tarantino film. Amongst all of the usual Tarantino trademarks of memorable performances, long strings of dialogue, a questionable amount of dancing, the inclusion of several shots of barefoot women, interior car sequences, and a relentless tidal wave of vulgarity that drowns the audience in a sea of sharp expletives, Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood lacks the one element that truly makes a Tarantino film worthwhile; coherent storytelling.
Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood should be great based on its cast alone. Leonardo DiCaprio delivers one of his more complex performances as television star turned infrequent movie star Rick Dalton. Dalton made a name for himself in a western TV series called Bounty Law. Rick burned that bridge when he tried to make the jump to movies and failed. Now he only seems to get work as the TV villain. Rick gets an opportunity in Rome to star in Italian spaghetti westerns and reluctantly accepts. Rick is an alcoholic that struggles with a stutter when he speaks. He has low self-esteem and questions every decision he makes. The scene where he flubs his lines followed by his angry outburst in his trailer is extraordinary. He’s also the one person on the planet who seems to hate hippies more than Eric Cartman.
Brad Pitt portrays Rick’s stunt double Cliff Booth. Cliff is a Vietnam War veteran who may or may not have (but probably did) kill his wife without any repercussions. Cliff hardly works as a stunt double anymore and mostly makes his living driving Rick around and doing various odd jobs for him. Cliff is the exact opposite of Rick. Rick lives in the Hollywood Hills in a roomy luxurious house with a pool and an extravagant view. Cliff lives in a trailer by a drive-in theater, eats macaroni and cheese for dinner, and has amazing chemistry with his pitbull Brandy. Cliff seems like a handy and capable guy, but he’s also extremely blunt. His to-the-point demeanor keeps Rick’s wilder antics in check the majority of the time. Cliff doesn’t exactly babysit Rick and allows him to live his own life, but he’s the one to give Rick the “you’re better than that,” kind of pep talk after it’s over.
One of the things mentioned in the film by Kurt Russell (he plays Randy and does the voiceover as the narrator) is that Rick and Cliff share this bond that is practically as deep as a brotherhood yet lacks the commitment of a marriage. Their bond is the backbone of the film and it’s interesting because they both seem like half decent people. Cliff may have killed someone and Rick beats himself up harder than anyone else could, but they’re both hard working individuals who put everything into their work and they have each other’s backs through thick and thin. Their bond is almost wholesome to the minuscule extent Tarantino will allow.
Brad Pitt’s chemistry with Brandy is also quite entertaining. There’s something comical about seeing Cliff rummage through his pantry filled with nothing but cans of dog food only to pull out two specific cans; one rat flavored and one raccoon flavored. He opens the cans with a manual can opener, tips them over in mid-air after removing their lids, and lets gravity guide that slop into whatever is designated as a food bowl that particular evening in a sickening PLOP! And a meaty splash that overflows onto the kitchen floor tiles. Cliff and Brandy seem almost as close as Cliff and Rick. They have this partnership that is easy to detect as soon as they’re on-screen together.
Mike Moh’s Bruce Lee impression isn’t totally flawless, but it is fairly excellent regardless. Moh is Korean and Bruce Lee was Chinese-American, so it’s an intriguing fit that works way better than you expect. The scene Moh has with Pitt as Bruce Lee and Cliff Booth have a physical encounter is an entertaining highlight of the film. The outrageous violence you’ve come to expect in a Tarantino film isn’t present in Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood until the final scene and it is a glorious display of dog biting, face pummeling, and flame throwing mayhem. If Cliff Booth hasn’t already established himself as a certified badass through the first two and a half hours, those last ten minutes certainly allow him to obtain that title with ease.
The unfortunate aspect of Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood is that everything doesn’t really come together in a satisfying way. You’ve got a washed up actor trying to regain the spotlight, a stunt double struggling to find work and make a living despite his troublesome reputation, and the Charles Manson stuff with Roman Polanski (Rafal Zawierucha) and Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) living next door to Rick and Cliff’s time at the Spahn Movie Ranch with the Manson Family. In 1968, Tate and four others were murdered in the home she shared with Polanski by members of the Manson Family while being eight-and-a-half months pregnant. It’s a horrendous statistic that puts a different perspective on the ending if you didn’t know beforehand. The Manson inclusion mostly feels like an afterthought that isn’t ever taken seriously.
So many recognizable names are a part of the cast and everyone outside of Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio are basically a waste. Margot Robbie has a few moments that mostly reside in her reacting to films starring Sharon Tate in a movie theater. Tate seems to represent this pure and positive light in the film while Rick and Cliff experience the uglier aspects of the Tarantino-skewed late 1960s. Robbie downright glows during that movie theater sequence with a bubbly and contagious attitude, but doesn’t do much else over the course of the film.
Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood feels longer than its 141-minute duration. It drags so often in between its enjoyable moments and seems to purposely lag during every dialogue heavy sequence that is just talking without any sort of payoff. Tarantino’s attention to the music of whatever era he’s depicting has always been a staple in his films, but it is on the verge of annoyance here. The dancing in the film feels like an excuse to stretch out the story that much longer for no other reason other than to blatantly rub the audience’s nose in the time period.
There are some masterful elements to Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood that shouldn’t be overlooked. Leonardo DiCaprio’s Rick F’ing Dalton sequence is explosively brilliant and Brad Pitt has this abrasive charm as Cliff Booth. It’s difficult to make the argument that Quentin Tarantino has original stories still worth telling at this point in his career though since this suffers from incoherent progression and a reasonable purpose for why we should care about these characters. At one point in the film, Rick tells Cliff with tears streaming down his face and this unhealthy cough full of cancerous phlegm, “It’s official old buddy. I’m a has-been.” Maybe this is how Tarantino feels about himself now that he’s nearing the end of his filmmaking career. That struggle to find meaning and a welcome audience for something he used to care deeply about but may have lost the passion for in recent years. He had a good run, but as it stands Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood is overstuffed yet bland despite its two zesty leads.
Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood should be great based on its cast alone. Leonardo DiCaprio delivers one of his more complex performances as television star turned infrequent movie star Rick Dalton. Dalton made a name for himself in a western TV series called Bounty Law. Rick burned that bridge when he tried to make the jump to movies and failed. Now he only seems to get work as the TV villain. Rick gets an opportunity in Rome to star in Italian spaghetti westerns and reluctantly accepts. Rick is an alcoholic that struggles with a stutter when he speaks. He has low self-esteem and questions every decision he makes. The scene where he flubs his lines followed by his angry outburst in his trailer is extraordinary. He’s also the one person on the planet who seems to hate hippies more than Eric Cartman.
Brad Pitt portrays Rick’s stunt double Cliff Booth. Cliff is a Vietnam War veteran who may or may not have (but probably did) kill his wife without any repercussions. Cliff hardly works as a stunt double anymore and mostly makes his living driving Rick around and doing various odd jobs for him. Cliff is the exact opposite of Rick. Rick lives in the Hollywood Hills in a roomy luxurious house with a pool and an extravagant view. Cliff lives in a trailer by a drive-in theater, eats macaroni and cheese for dinner, and has amazing chemistry with his pitbull Brandy. Cliff seems like a handy and capable guy, but he’s also extremely blunt. His to-the-point demeanor keeps Rick’s wilder antics in check the majority of the time. Cliff doesn’t exactly babysit Rick and allows him to live his own life, but he’s the one to give Rick the “you’re better than that,” kind of pep talk after it’s over.
One of the things mentioned in the film by Kurt Russell (he plays Randy and does the voiceover as the narrator) is that Rick and Cliff share this bond that is practically as deep as a brotherhood yet lacks the commitment of a marriage. Their bond is the backbone of the film and it’s interesting because they both seem like half decent people. Cliff may have killed someone and Rick beats himself up harder than anyone else could, but they’re both hard working individuals who put everything into their work and they have each other’s backs through thick and thin. Their bond is almost wholesome to the minuscule extent Tarantino will allow.
Brad Pitt’s chemistry with Brandy is also quite entertaining. There’s something comical about seeing Cliff rummage through his pantry filled with nothing but cans of dog food only to pull out two specific cans; one rat flavored and one raccoon flavored. He opens the cans with a manual can opener, tips them over in mid-air after removing their lids, and lets gravity guide that slop into whatever is designated as a food bowl that particular evening in a sickening PLOP! And a meaty splash that overflows onto the kitchen floor tiles. Cliff and Brandy seem almost as close as Cliff and Rick. They have this partnership that is easy to detect as soon as they’re on-screen together.
Mike Moh’s Bruce Lee impression isn’t totally flawless, but it is fairly excellent regardless. Moh is Korean and Bruce Lee was Chinese-American, so it’s an intriguing fit that works way better than you expect. The scene Moh has with Pitt as Bruce Lee and Cliff Booth have a physical encounter is an entertaining highlight of the film. The outrageous violence you’ve come to expect in a Tarantino film isn’t present in Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood until the final scene and it is a glorious display of dog biting, face pummeling, and flame throwing mayhem. If Cliff Booth hasn’t already established himself as a certified badass through the first two and a half hours, those last ten minutes certainly allow him to obtain that title with ease.
The unfortunate aspect of Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood is that everything doesn’t really come together in a satisfying way. You’ve got a washed up actor trying to regain the spotlight, a stunt double struggling to find work and make a living despite his troublesome reputation, and the Charles Manson stuff with Roman Polanski (Rafal Zawierucha) and Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) living next door to Rick and Cliff’s time at the Spahn Movie Ranch with the Manson Family. In 1968, Tate and four others were murdered in the home she shared with Polanski by members of the Manson Family while being eight-and-a-half months pregnant. It’s a horrendous statistic that puts a different perspective on the ending if you didn’t know beforehand. The Manson inclusion mostly feels like an afterthought that isn’t ever taken seriously.
So many recognizable names are a part of the cast and everyone outside of Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio are basically a waste. Margot Robbie has a few moments that mostly reside in her reacting to films starring Sharon Tate in a movie theater. Tate seems to represent this pure and positive light in the film while Rick and Cliff experience the uglier aspects of the Tarantino-skewed late 1960s. Robbie downright glows during that movie theater sequence with a bubbly and contagious attitude, but doesn’t do much else over the course of the film.
Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood feels longer than its 141-minute duration. It drags so often in between its enjoyable moments and seems to purposely lag during every dialogue heavy sequence that is just talking without any sort of payoff. Tarantino’s attention to the music of whatever era he’s depicting has always been a staple in his films, but it is on the verge of annoyance here. The dancing in the film feels like an excuse to stretch out the story that much longer for no other reason other than to blatantly rub the audience’s nose in the time period.
There are some masterful elements to Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood that shouldn’t be overlooked. Leonardo DiCaprio’s Rick F’ing Dalton sequence is explosively brilliant and Brad Pitt has this abrasive charm as Cliff Booth. It’s difficult to make the argument that Quentin Tarantino has original stories still worth telling at this point in his career though since this suffers from incoherent progression and a reasonable purpose for why we should care about these characters. At one point in the film, Rick tells Cliff with tears streaming down his face and this unhealthy cough full of cancerous phlegm, “It’s official old buddy. I’m a has-been.” Maybe this is how Tarantino feels about himself now that he’s nearing the end of his filmmaking career. That struggle to find meaning and a welcome audience for something he used to care deeply about but may have lost the passion for in recent years. He had a good run, but as it stands Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood is overstuffed yet bland despite its two zesty leads.
The Bandersnatch (199 KP) rated The Hunger Games in Books
Nov 7, 2019
The Hunger Games is a trilogy of YA dystopian novels written by American author Suzanne Collins. The story is set in an unspecified future, in a dystopian, post-apocalyptic nation of Panem located in North America. The country consists of the Wealthy Capital surrounded by the twelve (Originally thirteen) poorer districts, each one in various states of poverty. The story follows Katniss Everdeen as she takes her sisters place in the annual Hunger Games. The games are a televised event created as punishment for a past rebellion. Over the course of the books Katniss and the rest of Panem are plunged into Civil War thanks to Katniss inadvertently fuelling a hidden rebel fraction led by President Alma Coin of (the previously thought to be destroyed) District 13. After going through hell, loosing friends and the sister she tried to protect Katniss is eventually tried for killing Coin at the execution of Ex-President Snow and sent back to District 12. Katniss eventually marries fellow tribute Peeta Mellark (whom she was tied to during the games as the pair of star-crossed lovers) and eventually have two children a boy and a girl. Author Suzanne Collins stated that the inspiration for the story came to her after channel surfing through TV channels, having seen a reality show on one channel then saw footage of the Iraq invasion. The two began to blur in an unsettling way and the idea started to form. The Greek myth of Theseus also served as a basis for the story, with Collins saying that Katniss could be called a future Theseus and The Hunger Games being an interpretation of the old gladiatorial games.
The Hunger Games the titular book was released on September 14th 2008 under the publishing house Scholastic Press. The book had an initial print run of 50,00 copies eventually being bumped up twice to 200,000 copies. By February 2010 the book had sold 800,000 copies and rights to the novel have been sold in 38 territories. In November 2008 The Hunger Games was placed on the New York Times best seller list where it would remain for 100 weeks (just over three months). By the time the books film adaption released in march 2012 the book had been on USA Today's best seller list for 135 weeks (Four months) and sold over 17.5 million copies. The book received several awards and honours such as Publishers Weekley's “Best book of the year 2008”, the New York Times “Notable children's book 2008” and was the 2009 young adult fiction category winner of the Golden Duck award. The book also received the California Young Reader medal in 2011.
Catching Fire, the second book was published on September 1st 2009 under Scholastic. As the sequel to the Hunger Games book it continues the story of Katniss Everdeen and the post-apocalyptic nation of Panem as rebellion begins. The book received mixed reviews but was placed on Time Magazines Top 100 fiction list of 2009. Catching fire had an initial print of 350,00 copies but was (Like its predecessor) had grown to 750,00 by February 2010. The book has sold over 10 million copies.
Mocking-jay the third and final book in the Hunger Games Trilogy and was published August 24th 2010 by Scholastic. The book had a 1.2 million copy print that was bumped up from 750,000 copies and in its first week sold over 450,00 copies. Reviews were favourable with the book and notes that it thoroughly explores the themes of the other books.
I really love the books and regularly read them. Whenever I do read them I tend to read all three of them in the space of a week. To be fair whilst I had heard of them before the first movie release I didn't start reading them until I'd seen the first movie. I did read Catching Fire and Mockingjay before their movie equivalents hit the screens. Whilst The Hunger Games was a brilliant opener and Mockingjay was a brilliant ender, I agree with a few reviewers that Catching fire had a delayed start and it took a bit of time to get into the action of the story at large.
Suzanne Collins was born in Hartford Connecticut on the 10th of August 1962 as the youngest fourth child to Jane Bradley Collins and Lt. Col. Michael Jon Collins a decorated U. S. Air Force officer. As a daughter of a military man she was constantly moving with her family and spent her childhood in the eastern united states. Collins went to the Alabama school of fine arts in Birmingham 1980 as a theatre arts Major. Collins went on to complete a Bachelor of arts from Indiana University in 1985 and telecommunications and in 1989 Collins earned her M. F. A. in dramatic writing from NYU Tisch school of arts. Collins began her career in 1991 as a writer for children's television shows and won a nomination in animation for co-writing the critically acclaimed Christmas special Santa, Baby!. Collins after meeting James Proimos whilst working on a children's show felt the urge to write children's books and spent the early 2000's writing five books of the Underland Chronicles; Gregor the Overlander, Gregor and the Prophecy of Bane, Gregor and the curse of the Warmbloods, Gregor and the Marks of Secret and Gregor and the Code of Claw. The influence for those books came from Alice in Wonderland. During the late 2000's she ends up writing the Hunger Games trilogy which went onto a famous movie trilogy. As the result of the hunger games trilogy popularity Collins was named one of Times Magazine's most Influential people of 2010. On June 17th 2019 Collins announced she was writing a prequel to the Hunger Games and is scheduled to be released on 19th May 2020, the book is to focus on the failed rebellion 64 years before the Hunger Games trilogy.
I highly respect the Author Suzanne Collins for both her work as a writer of Children's media and for her creativity in creating both the Hunger Games and the Underland Chronicles. Her creativity has been awarded with her books popularity and being announced amongst Time Magazine's 2010's most influential people and Amazons best selling Kindle author in 2012.
In March 2009 Lions Gate Entertainment entered into a co-production agreement with Nina Jacobson's Production company Color Force for the Hunger Games. Novel writer Suzanne Collins adapted the book in collaboration with screenwriter Billy Ray and Director Gary Ross. Actors Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutchinson and Liam Hemsworth were hired for the roles of Katniss, Peeta and Gale respectively. Lawrence was four years older than Katniss was in the books but Collins said she would rather the actress be older than the character since it demanded a certain maturity and power. Collins also liked Lawrence stating she was the “only one who truly captured the character I wrote in the book”. The Hunger Games Movie was released on march 23rd 2012. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire was released on November 22nd 2013 with Francis Lawrence being hired as Director and actors Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Jena Malone and Sam Claflin being hired as Plutarch Heavensbee, Johanna Mason and Finneck Odair respectively. The Hunger Games: Mockingjay was split into 2 and Part 1 was released on November 21st 2014 and part 2 on November 20th 2015 Francis Lawrence remained Director for the final movies with Actor Julianne Moore joining the cast as President Alma Coin.
I loved the movies point blank and whilst it has its flaws like most movies often do I think its redeeming quality has been it faithfulness in sticking to the books as closely as possible and the actors representation of Suzanne Collins characters such as Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss, Donald Sunderland and President Snow, Stanley Tucci as Ceaser Flickerman, Woody Harrelson as Haymich Abernathy and Elizabeth Banks as Effie Trinkett. Whilst all the actors were very good and were chosen well for their characters. These actors in particular I feel did exceptionally well in bringing their characters to life especially Elizabeth Banks, Stanley Tucci and Woody Harrelson but then I am a very big fan of theirs so I may be a little biased.
The Hunger Games the titular book was released on September 14th 2008 under the publishing house Scholastic Press. The book had an initial print run of 50,00 copies eventually being bumped up twice to 200,000 copies. By February 2010 the book had sold 800,000 copies and rights to the novel have been sold in 38 territories. In November 2008 The Hunger Games was placed on the New York Times best seller list where it would remain for 100 weeks (just over three months). By the time the books film adaption released in march 2012 the book had been on USA Today's best seller list for 135 weeks (Four months) and sold over 17.5 million copies. The book received several awards and honours such as Publishers Weekley's “Best book of the year 2008”, the New York Times “Notable children's book 2008” and was the 2009 young adult fiction category winner of the Golden Duck award. The book also received the California Young Reader medal in 2011.
Catching Fire, the second book was published on September 1st 2009 under Scholastic. As the sequel to the Hunger Games book it continues the story of Katniss Everdeen and the post-apocalyptic nation of Panem as rebellion begins. The book received mixed reviews but was placed on Time Magazines Top 100 fiction list of 2009. Catching fire had an initial print of 350,00 copies but was (Like its predecessor) had grown to 750,00 by February 2010. The book has sold over 10 million copies.
Mocking-jay the third and final book in the Hunger Games Trilogy and was published August 24th 2010 by Scholastic. The book had a 1.2 million copy print that was bumped up from 750,000 copies and in its first week sold over 450,00 copies. Reviews were favourable with the book and notes that it thoroughly explores the themes of the other books.
I really love the books and regularly read them. Whenever I do read them I tend to read all three of them in the space of a week. To be fair whilst I had heard of them before the first movie release I didn't start reading them until I'd seen the first movie. I did read Catching Fire and Mockingjay before their movie equivalents hit the screens. Whilst The Hunger Games was a brilliant opener and Mockingjay was a brilliant ender, I agree with a few reviewers that Catching fire had a delayed start and it took a bit of time to get into the action of the story at large.
Suzanne Collins was born in Hartford Connecticut on the 10th of August 1962 as the youngest fourth child to Jane Bradley Collins and Lt. Col. Michael Jon Collins a decorated U. S. Air Force officer. As a daughter of a military man she was constantly moving with her family and spent her childhood in the eastern united states. Collins went to the Alabama school of fine arts in Birmingham 1980 as a theatre arts Major. Collins went on to complete a Bachelor of arts from Indiana University in 1985 and telecommunications and in 1989 Collins earned her M. F. A. in dramatic writing from NYU Tisch school of arts. Collins began her career in 1991 as a writer for children's television shows and won a nomination in animation for co-writing the critically acclaimed Christmas special Santa, Baby!. Collins after meeting James Proimos whilst working on a children's show felt the urge to write children's books and spent the early 2000's writing five books of the Underland Chronicles; Gregor the Overlander, Gregor and the Prophecy of Bane, Gregor and the curse of the Warmbloods, Gregor and the Marks of Secret and Gregor and the Code of Claw. The influence for those books came from Alice in Wonderland. During the late 2000's she ends up writing the Hunger Games trilogy which went onto a famous movie trilogy. As the result of the hunger games trilogy popularity Collins was named one of Times Magazine's most Influential people of 2010. On June 17th 2019 Collins announced she was writing a prequel to the Hunger Games and is scheduled to be released on 19th May 2020, the book is to focus on the failed rebellion 64 years before the Hunger Games trilogy.
I highly respect the Author Suzanne Collins for both her work as a writer of Children's media and for her creativity in creating both the Hunger Games and the Underland Chronicles. Her creativity has been awarded with her books popularity and being announced amongst Time Magazine's 2010's most influential people and Amazons best selling Kindle author in 2012.
In March 2009 Lions Gate Entertainment entered into a co-production agreement with Nina Jacobson's Production company Color Force for the Hunger Games. Novel writer Suzanne Collins adapted the book in collaboration with screenwriter Billy Ray and Director Gary Ross. Actors Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutchinson and Liam Hemsworth were hired for the roles of Katniss, Peeta and Gale respectively. Lawrence was four years older than Katniss was in the books but Collins said she would rather the actress be older than the character since it demanded a certain maturity and power. Collins also liked Lawrence stating she was the “only one who truly captured the character I wrote in the book”. The Hunger Games Movie was released on march 23rd 2012. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire was released on November 22nd 2013 with Francis Lawrence being hired as Director and actors Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Jena Malone and Sam Claflin being hired as Plutarch Heavensbee, Johanna Mason and Finneck Odair respectively. The Hunger Games: Mockingjay was split into 2 and Part 1 was released on November 21st 2014 and part 2 on November 20th 2015 Francis Lawrence remained Director for the final movies with Actor Julianne Moore joining the cast as President Alma Coin.
I loved the movies point blank and whilst it has its flaws like most movies often do I think its redeeming quality has been it faithfulness in sticking to the books as closely as possible and the actors representation of Suzanne Collins characters such as Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss, Donald Sunderland and President Snow, Stanley Tucci as Ceaser Flickerman, Woody Harrelson as Haymich Abernathy and Elizabeth Banks as Effie Trinkett. Whilst all the actors were very good and were chosen well for their characters. These actors in particular I feel did exceptionally well in bringing their characters to life especially Elizabeth Banks, Stanley Tucci and Woody Harrelson but then I am a very big fan of theirs so I may be a little biased.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Initially when a franchise reboots a series not five years from its last installment this can often be seen as a sign that they’ve run out of ideas. It was reportedly the inability to find a suitable script that drove director-producer Sam Raimi and the stars of the Spider-man series away from a possible fourth outing and forced Sony/Columbia start fresh.
Selecting the relatively new Marc Webb who, outside of “500 Days of Summer”, had worked on music videos and most recently directed episode of The Office and the pilot for Lone Star, seemed like a very odd choice to turn over the billion-dollar franchise. The selection of American-born English actor Andrew Garfield also seemed to be an interesting choice to don the tights of the wall crawler.
Thankfully this is exactly the fresh start that the series needed. Even though I went into the film with guarded and reserved expectations I must say that I’m absolutely delighted with how the final product came out as this is a very fresh and faithful adaptation of the beloved comic book character that, in my opinion is the best adaptation to date on film.
The screenplay by James Vanderbilt was based on a story credited to three other writers all of whom clearly understand the character and the source material and are focused first and foremost with being respectful to it rather than putting their own unique stamp and take on the franchise.
The film does take a little bit of liberty by showing Peter Parker’s parents as they place young Peter in the custody of Ben and May Parker (Martin Sheen and Sally Fields) as they flee into a rainy night from implied danger, never to be seen again.
The film continues with teenage Peter (Andrew Garfield), plodding his way through high school. As brilliant as Peter is academically, he is extremely awkward around girls especially the lovely Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), who never fails to catch his eye. When a clue from his father’s past arises, Peter finds himself at Oscorp where Gwen works as an intern. Peter also finds himself on the radar of his dad’s former partner Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), who becomes intrigued by young Peter’s scientific theories and even more so in his abilities when he learns that he is the offspring of his former partner.
Dr. Connors is working on cross species genetics and hopes that not only will it someday replaces missing arm, but will also pave a bold new direction for humanity. During a visit to the lab Peter, is bitten by a radioactive spider, and as any fan of the series knows, begins to exhibit amazing strength, agility, and perception, as well as the ability to walk on walls and cling to ceilings. In a very refreshing return to form, Peter fashions his famous web slingers rather than have them be organic as the previous film series did.
When a twist of fate puts Peter on the path of vengeance, he becomes a masked vigilante who uses his newfound abilities to rid New York some of its less pleasant citizens. These activities do not sit well with Captain Stacy (Denis Leary), who also happens to be Gwen’s father. As Peter and Gwen become closer, the duality of hiding his new identity from Capt. Stacy and Aunt May becomes even more imperative.
Naturally, it would not be much of a superhero film without a super villain, and Dr. Connors is more than willing to step up to this. Faced with pressure from his bosses he decides to use an experimental serum on himself. At first he is delighted as he seems to regrow his lost limb, but then in a Jekyll & Hyde-like transformation he transforms into a gigantic lizard creature bent on revenge and destruction as he attempts to complete a plan that will devastate millions of New York citizens.
Since Peter helped provide the equation that led to the formula that transform Dr. Connors, he feels obligated to stop the raging creature and to save his mentor no matter the cost. What follows are some truly spectacular action sequences including sewer battles in an extremely memorable finale across the Manhattan skyline.
While the film did take its time getting started as it established its back story and introduced the characters, once it got rolling it was an extremely fun and exhilarating ride. Garfield and Stone have a very good chemistry with one another and the reports of them recently dating off screen further solidifies their on-screen bond. Garfield wonderfully captures the conflicted emotions of Peter Parker as well as the brilliantly awkward genius that he is.
He runs the gamut of emotions from showing his anger and frustration to the dopey awkwardness of his interactions with Gwen and very believable manner. When he becomes infused with his new abilities you can almost share the glee that he has as he swings and flips around the landscape. The sheltered, socially awkward young man disappears when he dons the mask. He’s free to let himself go and Garfield does this with a childlike delight as well as the trademark quips and wisecracks that made the character such a beloved icon.
Garfield handles the physical duties of the role quite well and shines both in and out of the costume. I thought Tobey Maguire did a fantastic job bringing the character to life previously, but in my opinion Garfield has captured the essence of Peter Parker/ Spider-man and made it his own with a truly wonderful performance all around.
Stone does a great job as the love interest in the film as she is more than just eye candy and the typical damsel in distress far too common with this type of film. She challenges Peter and you can see some gleeful delight in her eyes when Peter awkwardly stumbles around her in an attempt to ask her out. Because she clearly enjoys the situation Gwen is not about to make it any easier on Peter, even though she’s been waiting for him to muster the courage for ages. She’s a strong and determined woman who gives a good range of emotions in her scenes and complements Garfield exceptionally well.
The supporting cast was very good especially Leary and Fields and Ifans does a good job as the quietly restrained Connors. In what could’ve easily been a scenery chewing, over-the-top Machiavellian bad guy, Ifans portrays Connors as a very sympathetic and understandable figure. He is a scientist first and foremost who is trying to do what he believes is right. He is not suited for the political machinations of a large corporation and when he begins this transformation and the animal side takes over there is still a hint of humanity amongst all the CGI work for the re-imagined Lizard.
While it did take me a while to get used to the look of The Lizard having become accustomed to his portrayal in comics and cartoons, I have to say it was a good updating it still stayed faithful to the essence of the original character.
Webb wisely decided to shoot in 3-D and not do a post filming conversion. It is the visually captivating and at times stunning cinema photography that really sets the tone for the film. You can truly get an idea of what it is like to be Spider-man as he swings and flips through the city and the point of view shots of his web firing out to latch onto objects and take down opponents are a lot of fun. Webb clearly knows the subject matter and gets the most out of his very talented cast and tells a very entertaining yet human action story and lets the effects support the film rather than carry it.
The film was much better than “Spider-man 3”. I am so happy that the franchise is in good hands and is moving forward in the right direction. Although the movie did take a while to get up to speed once it got rolling I did not want it to end, and I commented to my wife that I don’t want to have to wait 2 to 3 years for the next installment of the film I’m ready for more now. As a lifelong fan of comic I can honestly say I am beyond delighted with the new film, cast, director, and direction for the series.
Selecting the relatively new Marc Webb who, outside of “500 Days of Summer”, had worked on music videos and most recently directed episode of The Office and the pilot for Lone Star, seemed like a very odd choice to turn over the billion-dollar franchise. The selection of American-born English actor Andrew Garfield also seemed to be an interesting choice to don the tights of the wall crawler.
Thankfully this is exactly the fresh start that the series needed. Even though I went into the film with guarded and reserved expectations I must say that I’m absolutely delighted with how the final product came out as this is a very fresh and faithful adaptation of the beloved comic book character that, in my opinion is the best adaptation to date on film.
The screenplay by James Vanderbilt was based on a story credited to three other writers all of whom clearly understand the character and the source material and are focused first and foremost with being respectful to it rather than putting their own unique stamp and take on the franchise.
The film does take a little bit of liberty by showing Peter Parker’s parents as they place young Peter in the custody of Ben and May Parker (Martin Sheen and Sally Fields) as they flee into a rainy night from implied danger, never to be seen again.
The film continues with teenage Peter (Andrew Garfield), plodding his way through high school. As brilliant as Peter is academically, he is extremely awkward around girls especially the lovely Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), who never fails to catch his eye. When a clue from his father’s past arises, Peter finds himself at Oscorp where Gwen works as an intern. Peter also finds himself on the radar of his dad’s former partner Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), who becomes intrigued by young Peter’s scientific theories and even more so in his abilities when he learns that he is the offspring of his former partner.
Dr. Connors is working on cross species genetics and hopes that not only will it someday replaces missing arm, but will also pave a bold new direction for humanity. During a visit to the lab Peter, is bitten by a radioactive spider, and as any fan of the series knows, begins to exhibit amazing strength, agility, and perception, as well as the ability to walk on walls and cling to ceilings. In a very refreshing return to form, Peter fashions his famous web slingers rather than have them be organic as the previous film series did.
When a twist of fate puts Peter on the path of vengeance, he becomes a masked vigilante who uses his newfound abilities to rid New York some of its less pleasant citizens. These activities do not sit well with Captain Stacy (Denis Leary), who also happens to be Gwen’s father. As Peter and Gwen become closer, the duality of hiding his new identity from Capt. Stacy and Aunt May becomes even more imperative.
Naturally, it would not be much of a superhero film without a super villain, and Dr. Connors is more than willing to step up to this. Faced with pressure from his bosses he decides to use an experimental serum on himself. At first he is delighted as he seems to regrow his lost limb, but then in a Jekyll & Hyde-like transformation he transforms into a gigantic lizard creature bent on revenge and destruction as he attempts to complete a plan that will devastate millions of New York citizens.
Since Peter helped provide the equation that led to the formula that transform Dr. Connors, he feels obligated to stop the raging creature and to save his mentor no matter the cost. What follows are some truly spectacular action sequences including sewer battles in an extremely memorable finale across the Manhattan skyline.
While the film did take its time getting started as it established its back story and introduced the characters, once it got rolling it was an extremely fun and exhilarating ride. Garfield and Stone have a very good chemistry with one another and the reports of them recently dating off screen further solidifies their on-screen bond. Garfield wonderfully captures the conflicted emotions of Peter Parker as well as the brilliantly awkward genius that he is.
He runs the gamut of emotions from showing his anger and frustration to the dopey awkwardness of his interactions with Gwen and very believable manner. When he becomes infused with his new abilities you can almost share the glee that he has as he swings and flips around the landscape. The sheltered, socially awkward young man disappears when he dons the mask. He’s free to let himself go and Garfield does this with a childlike delight as well as the trademark quips and wisecracks that made the character such a beloved icon.
Garfield handles the physical duties of the role quite well and shines both in and out of the costume. I thought Tobey Maguire did a fantastic job bringing the character to life previously, but in my opinion Garfield has captured the essence of Peter Parker/ Spider-man and made it his own with a truly wonderful performance all around.
Stone does a great job as the love interest in the film as she is more than just eye candy and the typical damsel in distress far too common with this type of film. She challenges Peter and you can see some gleeful delight in her eyes when Peter awkwardly stumbles around her in an attempt to ask her out. Because she clearly enjoys the situation Gwen is not about to make it any easier on Peter, even though she’s been waiting for him to muster the courage for ages. She’s a strong and determined woman who gives a good range of emotions in her scenes and complements Garfield exceptionally well.
The supporting cast was very good especially Leary and Fields and Ifans does a good job as the quietly restrained Connors. In what could’ve easily been a scenery chewing, over-the-top Machiavellian bad guy, Ifans portrays Connors as a very sympathetic and understandable figure. He is a scientist first and foremost who is trying to do what he believes is right. He is not suited for the political machinations of a large corporation and when he begins this transformation and the animal side takes over there is still a hint of humanity amongst all the CGI work for the re-imagined Lizard.
While it did take me a while to get used to the look of The Lizard having become accustomed to his portrayal in comics and cartoons, I have to say it was a good updating it still stayed faithful to the essence of the original character.
Webb wisely decided to shoot in 3-D and not do a post filming conversion. It is the visually captivating and at times stunning cinema photography that really sets the tone for the film. You can truly get an idea of what it is like to be Spider-man as he swings and flips through the city and the point of view shots of his web firing out to latch onto objects and take down opponents are a lot of fun. Webb clearly knows the subject matter and gets the most out of his very talented cast and tells a very entertaining yet human action story and lets the effects support the film rather than carry it.
The film was much better than “Spider-man 3”. I am so happy that the franchise is in good hands and is moving forward in the right direction. Although the movie did take a while to get up to speed once it got rolling I did not want it to end, and I commented to my wife that I don’t want to have to wait 2 to 3 years for the next installment of the film I’m ready for more now. As a lifelong fan of comic I can honestly say I am beyond delighted with the new film, cast, director, and direction for the series.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Tales from the Loop in TV
Jan 22, 2021
Such is the competition for our attention on the major streaming services, and such is the daunting depth of choice, that sometimes something of real quality can slip through the net for a while. I like to think that eventually, everything gets the audience it deserves, because eventually enough people that appreciated it will find it and pass it on. But it is apparent that good things can go under the radar very easily for one reason or another.
Everything about the production and presentation of Amazon’s Tales From the Loop suggests they thought it might be a bigger hit, or at least they had enough faith in it to let it be different from the mass appeal conventions that apply to sci-fi shows. They have proved this many times in recent years, with shows like The Man In the High Castle and The Expanse favouring patient and mature story-telling over interminable flashbangs and whizzpops usually found in the more action based sci-fi on Netflix and others (The Handmaid’s Tale being another notable exception).
Having raised myself auto-didactically on the oldest traditions of science fiction writing in novel and short story form since my teenage years, I can say with some amateur authority that the point of using sci-fi ideas was always about the people and the parallels to social reality and politics that could be highlighted by putting them in a “what-if” situation. The lazer guns and spaceships and evil aliens were much more a product of Hollywood, and still are. Great science fiction writing can and usually does revolve around a very simple change to the world we know, an inversion or a convention or a technology that turns how we live on its head. At its best it is philosophical and moral poetry.
Tales From the Loop, inspired by the beguiling paintings of Swedish Artist Simon Stålenhag aspires to return to these principles, eschewing breakneck pace and unnecessary exposition at every turn – it is entirely content to confuse and sometimes even bore you with its patient, melancholy approach, testing almost if you are worthy to reach the prize of deeper meaning buried away in the final few episodes.
The idea of Stålenhag’s work is to juxtapose a familiar and mundane landscape with a detail of technology that does not exist in our reality. Often it is something broken, run-down or neglected, leaving a strange sadness and beauty behind that has you wondering who once made this and what was it for, and why is it no longer loved? The untold stories objects and hidden lives, secrets and desires that have been lost, is what this sensitive and delicate show is about. It is about the interconnection of lives caught in time, and the sci-fi / tech conceit is only the hanger that coat is put on. Which… I love.
The surface idea is that we are looking at the inhabitants of a small American town that once relied on farming and community, but now has been changed by the presence of an underground facility that deals with experimental physics and finding ways to make impossible things possible. They call it The Loop. It is never fully explained where it came from, or why, or what it is truly capable of – the mystery is always allowed to remain mostly a mystery – which, again, I love!
Many people in the town work at The Loop and rely on it for their livelihoods and collective economy, including Jonathon Pryce and Rebecca Hall, who are ostensibly the show’s main characters. But most folk have no idea what is really going on. Each episode focuses on one or two members of the community that interweave with one another; several important people begin as background dressing and become more prevalent as the full story of their lives and connections unfolds. But no one character is in every episode… which, you know, I love.
Their lives, that seem simple at first glance, are revealed to be complex tapestries of emotion and personal history, revolving around how The Loop has affected them and the things they love. The progression and unfolding of the detail is so deliberate and usually under-explained that very often you don’t realise the effect the full image will have. And when it does catch up with you it becomes a very moving and meaningful experience. Characters that you don’t understand or even like at first come into sharper focus as we reach the climax of the season and grow to learn why they are the way they are. The story arcs of Pryce and Hall in particular are very satisfying, tragic yet utterly beautiful to comprehend.
A lot of the criticism you will see about the show will concentrate on how slow it all is. I am totally convinced this is a deliberate artistic choice to weed out the thrill junkies. They are very welcome to go elsewhere, and it sounds as if many of them did, basing their reviews on one or two half watched episodes they couldn’t be bothered to engage with or wonder at. Which is why I think in time the respect for this as a work of art will come back around.
There is nothing to fault in the production at all. From the opening credits to the end of each episode, what you get is a very highly polished and considered look and feel, designed to evoke certain feelings over others – a wistfulness, an ennui, a bittersweet smile of knowing, perhaps. It invites you to watch patiently and relate, not to watch eagerly and expect… which, you know, I love.
The photography is crisp and well framed always; the music is subtle but effective; the dialogue is often sparing and well chosen (no detail is merely thrown away); and the direction is of a remarkably uniform vision, considering each episode is a different guest professional, including such prestigious names as Jodie Foster, Mark Romanek and Andrew Stanton.
I absolutely urge anyone that isn’t put off by a little sentiment to give this one a try. Sadness and regret in life is not something to shun and be afraid of, they are parts of human experience, and I love art that explores them as concepts. Put that art in a science fiction context and I am bound to love it even more. Like the final moments of Blade Runner, we know that one day all these moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. We have to take time to see the beauty while we can, even if that beauty is painful.
It may not be for you – I don’t think it is better or worse than other things, just more… me. There is every chance that if it isn’t you… you will hate it. If you do begin, however, please see it to the finish before casting judgement – the final episode directed by Jodie Foster is truly wonderful: a pay-off of such emotion after your investment of seven previous stories, tying it all together perfectly. Rarely have I felt so stupid for not understanding the point of something sooner, or been more pleased that I hadn’t. The final moment of the season is literally unforgettable, and gets richer in my imagination by the day.
Will there be a second season? There certainly could be. Was it enough of a success to justify the investment? Hmm, not sure. Either way, it either sits as a perfect self contained collection of fine, old-fashioned sci-fi stories, or I’d be happy to see it expand, as long as the temptation isn’t to listen to the negative reviews and pander to the fast-food mentality that has already rejected it without fully understanding it. Because nothing needs to change here. A thing of beauty, recommended to those who like beautiful and delicate things.
Everything about the production and presentation of Amazon’s Tales From the Loop suggests they thought it might be a bigger hit, or at least they had enough faith in it to let it be different from the mass appeal conventions that apply to sci-fi shows. They have proved this many times in recent years, with shows like The Man In the High Castle and The Expanse favouring patient and mature story-telling over interminable flashbangs and whizzpops usually found in the more action based sci-fi on Netflix and others (The Handmaid’s Tale being another notable exception).
Having raised myself auto-didactically on the oldest traditions of science fiction writing in novel and short story form since my teenage years, I can say with some amateur authority that the point of using sci-fi ideas was always about the people and the parallels to social reality and politics that could be highlighted by putting them in a “what-if” situation. The lazer guns and spaceships and evil aliens were much more a product of Hollywood, and still are. Great science fiction writing can and usually does revolve around a very simple change to the world we know, an inversion or a convention or a technology that turns how we live on its head. At its best it is philosophical and moral poetry.
Tales From the Loop, inspired by the beguiling paintings of Swedish Artist Simon Stålenhag aspires to return to these principles, eschewing breakneck pace and unnecessary exposition at every turn – it is entirely content to confuse and sometimes even bore you with its patient, melancholy approach, testing almost if you are worthy to reach the prize of deeper meaning buried away in the final few episodes.
The idea of Stålenhag’s work is to juxtapose a familiar and mundane landscape with a detail of technology that does not exist in our reality. Often it is something broken, run-down or neglected, leaving a strange sadness and beauty behind that has you wondering who once made this and what was it for, and why is it no longer loved? The untold stories objects and hidden lives, secrets and desires that have been lost, is what this sensitive and delicate show is about. It is about the interconnection of lives caught in time, and the sci-fi / tech conceit is only the hanger that coat is put on. Which… I love.
The surface idea is that we are looking at the inhabitants of a small American town that once relied on farming and community, but now has been changed by the presence of an underground facility that deals with experimental physics and finding ways to make impossible things possible. They call it The Loop. It is never fully explained where it came from, or why, or what it is truly capable of – the mystery is always allowed to remain mostly a mystery – which, again, I love!
Many people in the town work at The Loop and rely on it for their livelihoods and collective economy, including Jonathon Pryce and Rebecca Hall, who are ostensibly the show’s main characters. But most folk have no idea what is really going on. Each episode focuses on one or two members of the community that interweave with one another; several important people begin as background dressing and become more prevalent as the full story of their lives and connections unfolds. But no one character is in every episode… which, you know, I love.
Their lives, that seem simple at first glance, are revealed to be complex tapestries of emotion and personal history, revolving around how The Loop has affected them and the things they love. The progression and unfolding of the detail is so deliberate and usually under-explained that very often you don’t realise the effect the full image will have. And when it does catch up with you it becomes a very moving and meaningful experience. Characters that you don’t understand or even like at first come into sharper focus as we reach the climax of the season and grow to learn why they are the way they are. The story arcs of Pryce and Hall in particular are very satisfying, tragic yet utterly beautiful to comprehend.
A lot of the criticism you will see about the show will concentrate on how slow it all is. I am totally convinced this is a deliberate artistic choice to weed out the thrill junkies. They are very welcome to go elsewhere, and it sounds as if many of them did, basing their reviews on one or two half watched episodes they couldn’t be bothered to engage with or wonder at. Which is why I think in time the respect for this as a work of art will come back around.
There is nothing to fault in the production at all. From the opening credits to the end of each episode, what you get is a very highly polished and considered look and feel, designed to evoke certain feelings over others – a wistfulness, an ennui, a bittersweet smile of knowing, perhaps. It invites you to watch patiently and relate, not to watch eagerly and expect… which, you know, I love.
The photography is crisp and well framed always; the music is subtle but effective; the dialogue is often sparing and well chosen (no detail is merely thrown away); and the direction is of a remarkably uniform vision, considering each episode is a different guest professional, including such prestigious names as Jodie Foster, Mark Romanek and Andrew Stanton.
I absolutely urge anyone that isn’t put off by a little sentiment to give this one a try. Sadness and regret in life is not something to shun and be afraid of, they are parts of human experience, and I love art that explores them as concepts. Put that art in a science fiction context and I am bound to love it even more. Like the final moments of Blade Runner, we know that one day all these moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. We have to take time to see the beauty while we can, even if that beauty is painful.
It may not be for you – I don’t think it is better or worse than other things, just more… me. There is every chance that if it isn’t you… you will hate it. If you do begin, however, please see it to the finish before casting judgement – the final episode directed by Jodie Foster is truly wonderful: a pay-off of such emotion after your investment of seven previous stories, tying it all together perfectly. Rarely have I felt so stupid for not understanding the point of something sooner, or been more pleased that I hadn’t. The final moment of the season is literally unforgettable, and gets richer in my imagination by the day.
Will there be a second season? There certainly could be. Was it enough of a success to justify the investment? Hmm, not sure. Either way, it either sits as a perfect self contained collection of fine, old-fashioned sci-fi stories, or I’d be happy to see it expand, as long as the temptation isn’t to listen to the negative reviews and pander to the fast-food mentality that has already rejected it without fully understanding it. Because nothing needs to change here. A thing of beauty, recommended to those who like beautiful and delicate things.
Hadley (567 KP) rated In Cold Blood: A True Account of a Multiple Murder and Its Consequences in Books
Aug 2, 2020
The writing (1 more)
The flow
In the 'Introduction' of Capote's true crime novel In Cold Blood, American writer Bob Colacello states: "Capote was one of the first who dared to elevate journalism to the level of art. In Cold Blood is a work of great discipline and even greater restraint, a tale of fate, as spare and elegiac as a Greek tragedy, as rich in its breadth and depth as the classic French novels of Stendhal and Flaubert. 'We all have our souls and we all have facades,' Truman Capote told his friend Kay Meehan a year or so before he came upon the news that would inspire his masterpiece, 'and then there's something in between that makes us function as people. That's what I have the ability to communicate.' "
The novel, which was published in 1965, is an eyewitness account of Capote's visitation to the scene of the murder as well as meetings with the murderers and townspeople- - - a retelling of the crime and aftermath, mostly from the eyes of those affected, by hundreds of hours of interviews and interrogations. The novel, ultimately, was the end of Capote which led him to alcoholism that took his life in 1984.
Like most small-town murders, a tension between residences is created when a well-known and well-liked family of four is brutally murdered, and everyone begins to point a finger at the other: "But afterward the townspeople, theretofore sufficiently unfearful of each other to seldom trouble to lock their doors, found fantasy re-creating them over and again - - - those somber explosions that stimulated fires of mistrust in the glare of which many old neighbors viewed each other strangely, and as strangers." Fortunately, the KBI (Kansas Bureau of Investigation) didn't allow these accusations to keep them from finding the real killers.
" 'Deep down,' Perry continued, 'way, way rock bottom, I never thought I could do it. A thing like that.' " Perry Smith, one of the murderers, confesses to his cohort and partner-in-crime, Richard Hickock, about murdering the Clutter family. "Presently, he said, 'Know what it is that really bugs me? About that other thing[Clutter murder]? It's just I don't believe it- - - that anyone can get away with a thing like that.' And he suspected that Dick [Richard] didn't, either. For Dick was at least partly inhabited by Perry's mystical-moral apprehensions. Thus: 'Now, just shut up!' "
Capote writes clearly of the impact that Smith's and Hickock's past may have played leading up to the murders, mostly focusing on Smith's traumatic childhood. During the trial portion of the book, a psychologist is brought in to point out how the two murderers may not have been responsible for their actions due-to instances in their past - - - a horrific car crash in Hickock's that left him with a lop-sided face and black-out spells, as well as Smith being physically and emotional abused by his alcoholic mother and father. In exploring these traumas, In Cold Blood leaves the impression that these two men were merely ticking time bombs and that the Clutter family, unfortunately, had to pay for it.
The trauma shared by Hickock and Smith help to shape the two murderers into actual human beings rather than monsters throughout the novel: one scene, where we get to read a letter to Smith from his last living sister, readers get to see how he was perceived by his family members, as his sister goes on to degrade him to the maturity level of a child and that she is above him because of that- - -but she also reveals her jealousy of their father loving him more than he ever loved her (despite the excessive abuse). A close friend of Smith's tells him to be careful writing her anymore because he believes that: 'they can only serve to increase your already dangerous anti-social instincts.'
Part of the narrative, too, is the KBI agent in-charge of the Clutter murder, Alvin Dewey: One day while visiting Holcomb's well-known cafe (Hartman's) where Dewey is told he looks awful from weight loss and fatigue - - - Dewey recalls that he had spent: 'two wearying and wasted days trying to trace that phantom pair, the Mexicans sworn by Paul Helm to have visited Mr. Clutter on the eve of the murders.' And then he gets heckled by a local, who wants to know why he hasn't found the people responsible yet,but Dewey simply smiles and walks away, having put up with numerous people being angry that the murders were taking so long to solve.
But it wasn't footwork that got the pair arrested, it was an old cellmate who had given Hickock the idea that there was $10,000 in a safe at the Clutter farm that came forward: (read this on my blog because I had to cut it out since my review was too long!).
Meanwhile, readers also get to experience Hickock and Smith's troubles as they are on the run after the murders which is done masterfully by Capote. And although one would assume that the killers would stay as far away from Kansas as possible, the two end up back there, only to miraculously get out before the police can catch up with them. The pair decide to head to Florida, where, on December 19, 1959, an entire family was murdered in the exact same way as the Clutters; Hickock and Smith both adamantly denied that they were involved with it - - - and back in 2012- - - Hickock and Smith's bodies were exhumed to compare their DNA with a profile found on one of the victim's clothing: they were not a match. The case remains unsolved til this day.
" Presently he[Smith] came across an inner-page story that won his entire attention. It concerned murder, the slaying of a Florida family, a Mr. and Mrs. Clifford Walker, their four-year-old son, and their two-year-old daughter. Each of the victims, though not bound or gagged, had been shot through the head with a .22 weapon. The crime, clueless and apparently motiveless, had taken place Saturday night, December 19, at the Walker home, on a cattle-raising ranch not far from Tallahassee."
Not soon after the pair leave the Florida beaches, they are arrested on what they believe to be parole violations, but it's clear, when the arresting officers are KBI agents that they had been caught for the Clutter murders. " 'Listen good, Perry. Because Mr. Duntz[KBI agent] is going to tell you where you really were...' Midway in the questioning, after he'd[Smith] begun to notice the number of allusions to a particular November weekend, he'd nerved himself for what he knew was coming, yet when it did, when the big cowboy with the sleepy voice said, 'You were killing the Clutter family' - - - well, he'd damn near died. That's all. "
The confession that follows is the most intense part of the book, given in it's entirety, readers finally get to know what happened to the Clutter family that cold night in November, 1959. Smith reveals that he never had the intention to kill anyone in the home, and that when the safe hadn't been found, he had fully intended to leave, even without Hickock, but what kept him there was Hickock threatening to rape Nancy Clutter. Smith states that he hates people who can't control themselves sexually, and that he didn't allow his partner to touch her at all. He also reveals that he thought about killing Hickock afterwards,stating: " no witnesses."
Capote didn't write 'In Cold Blood' until after Hickock and Smith were executed. The amount of interviews, court room appearances, and even witnessing the executions of both murderers shines through in this novel. But the book has also brought about doubters; a handful of people have since come forward to state that Capote's masterpiece is either 'not the full story' or 'completely wrong.' Just as recent as 2017, a man came forward with a 'manuscript' of a book that Hickock was writing, that contained a different confession on how and why the murders took place- - - Hickock states in this unpublished manuscript that a man by the name 'Roberts' had hired him and Smith to kill the Clutters.
Whether or not you believe that Capote wrote the whole truth or some of the truth, this novel is flawless and beautiful. The writing is poetic and the flow of the story keeps moving, page after page, never stopping long enough to bore the reader. I highly recommend this book as a MUST READ for anyone who loves the True Crime genre.
The novel, which was published in 1965, is an eyewitness account of Capote's visitation to the scene of the murder as well as meetings with the murderers and townspeople- - - a retelling of the crime and aftermath, mostly from the eyes of those affected, by hundreds of hours of interviews and interrogations. The novel, ultimately, was the end of Capote which led him to alcoholism that took his life in 1984.
Like most small-town murders, a tension between residences is created when a well-known and well-liked family of four is brutally murdered, and everyone begins to point a finger at the other: "But afterward the townspeople, theretofore sufficiently unfearful of each other to seldom trouble to lock their doors, found fantasy re-creating them over and again - - - those somber explosions that stimulated fires of mistrust in the glare of which many old neighbors viewed each other strangely, and as strangers." Fortunately, the KBI (Kansas Bureau of Investigation) didn't allow these accusations to keep them from finding the real killers.
" 'Deep down,' Perry continued, 'way, way rock bottom, I never thought I could do it. A thing like that.' " Perry Smith, one of the murderers, confesses to his cohort and partner-in-crime, Richard Hickock, about murdering the Clutter family. "Presently, he said, 'Know what it is that really bugs me? About that other thing[Clutter murder]? It's just I don't believe it- - - that anyone can get away with a thing like that.' And he suspected that Dick [Richard] didn't, either. For Dick was at least partly inhabited by Perry's mystical-moral apprehensions. Thus: 'Now, just shut up!' "
Capote writes clearly of the impact that Smith's and Hickock's past may have played leading up to the murders, mostly focusing on Smith's traumatic childhood. During the trial portion of the book, a psychologist is brought in to point out how the two murderers may not have been responsible for their actions due-to instances in their past - - - a horrific car crash in Hickock's that left him with a lop-sided face and black-out spells, as well as Smith being physically and emotional abused by his alcoholic mother and father. In exploring these traumas, In Cold Blood leaves the impression that these two men were merely ticking time bombs and that the Clutter family, unfortunately, had to pay for it.
The trauma shared by Hickock and Smith help to shape the two murderers into actual human beings rather than monsters throughout the novel: one scene, where we get to read a letter to Smith from his last living sister, readers get to see how he was perceived by his family members, as his sister goes on to degrade him to the maturity level of a child and that she is above him because of that- - -but she also reveals her jealousy of their father loving him more than he ever loved her (despite the excessive abuse). A close friend of Smith's tells him to be careful writing her anymore because he believes that: 'they can only serve to increase your already dangerous anti-social instincts.'
Part of the narrative, too, is the KBI agent in-charge of the Clutter murder, Alvin Dewey: One day while visiting Holcomb's well-known cafe (Hartman's) where Dewey is told he looks awful from weight loss and fatigue - - - Dewey recalls that he had spent: 'two wearying and wasted days trying to trace that phantom pair, the Mexicans sworn by Paul Helm to have visited Mr. Clutter on the eve of the murders.' And then he gets heckled by a local, who wants to know why he hasn't found the people responsible yet,but Dewey simply smiles and walks away, having put up with numerous people being angry that the murders were taking so long to solve.
But it wasn't footwork that got the pair arrested, it was an old cellmate who had given Hickock the idea that there was $10,000 in a safe at the Clutter farm that came forward: (read this on my blog because I had to cut it out since my review was too long!).
Meanwhile, readers also get to experience Hickock and Smith's troubles as they are on the run after the murders which is done masterfully by Capote. And although one would assume that the killers would stay as far away from Kansas as possible, the two end up back there, only to miraculously get out before the police can catch up with them. The pair decide to head to Florida, where, on December 19, 1959, an entire family was murdered in the exact same way as the Clutters; Hickock and Smith both adamantly denied that they were involved with it - - - and back in 2012- - - Hickock and Smith's bodies were exhumed to compare their DNA with a profile found on one of the victim's clothing: they were not a match. The case remains unsolved til this day.
" Presently he[Smith] came across an inner-page story that won his entire attention. It concerned murder, the slaying of a Florida family, a Mr. and Mrs. Clifford Walker, their four-year-old son, and their two-year-old daughter. Each of the victims, though not bound or gagged, had been shot through the head with a .22 weapon. The crime, clueless and apparently motiveless, had taken place Saturday night, December 19, at the Walker home, on a cattle-raising ranch not far from Tallahassee."
Not soon after the pair leave the Florida beaches, they are arrested on what they believe to be parole violations, but it's clear, when the arresting officers are KBI agents that they had been caught for the Clutter murders. " 'Listen good, Perry. Because Mr. Duntz[KBI agent] is going to tell you where you really were...' Midway in the questioning, after he'd[Smith] begun to notice the number of allusions to a particular November weekend, he'd nerved himself for what he knew was coming, yet when it did, when the big cowboy with the sleepy voice said, 'You were killing the Clutter family' - - - well, he'd damn near died. That's all. "
The confession that follows is the most intense part of the book, given in it's entirety, readers finally get to know what happened to the Clutter family that cold night in November, 1959. Smith reveals that he never had the intention to kill anyone in the home, and that when the safe hadn't been found, he had fully intended to leave, even without Hickock, but what kept him there was Hickock threatening to rape Nancy Clutter. Smith states that he hates people who can't control themselves sexually, and that he didn't allow his partner to touch her at all. He also reveals that he thought about killing Hickock afterwards,stating: " no witnesses."
Capote didn't write 'In Cold Blood' until after Hickock and Smith were executed. The amount of interviews, court room appearances, and even witnessing the executions of both murderers shines through in this novel. But the book has also brought about doubters; a handful of people have since come forward to state that Capote's masterpiece is either 'not the full story' or 'completely wrong.' Just as recent as 2017, a man came forward with a 'manuscript' of a book that Hickock was writing, that contained a different confession on how and why the murders took place- - - Hickock states in this unpublished manuscript that a man by the name 'Roberts' had hired him and Smith to kill the Clutters.
Whether or not you believe that Capote wrote the whole truth or some of the truth, this novel is flawless and beautiful. The writing is poetic and the flow of the story keeps moving, page after page, never stopping long enough to bore the reader. I highly recommend this book as a MUST READ for anyone who loves the True Crime genre.
ELLDBRY (0 KP) rated The Godfather (1972) in Movies
Apr 16, 2020
10/10
Contains spoilers, click to show
"I believe in America…."
What is it about someone you care about that sets them apart? Are they family, a friend, or someone you feel just needs help? What causes you to go the extra mile to put someone else ahead of yourself? You may find the answers in your religion, your upbringing, or in movies. For example, say your daughter goes out on a date with a guy and she is violently beaten by him and one of his friends. You go see her in the hospital and she cannot even weep because of the pain. So trying to keep your cool you press charges and try by the legal means to bring the young men to justice. It doesn't happen, their sentences are suspended. That may make you lose faith in the system that is supposed to protect you. So now you go to someone else who could help. This person is a bigshot, a pezzonovante in his own way but outside the system. You explain what happened and what you did, and all he says is 'why didn't you come to me first?' How many times in your life have some of us gone to others that don't care and asked for help instead of going to the ones that actually care. And the problem is solved. Imagine for another example that your father is in the hospital and men are coming to kill him. And you are the only one there that can help him. Imagine that you had your own dreams and your own goals that were different to what your father wanted. But in this moment you put all that aside to help your father survive. You assure him that everything will be ok and you are with him now. You bluff out the men trying to kill him and your father is saved. Most of us may never have to defend our dads from someone trying to kill him. But seeing someone laying helpless in a hospital bed in need of help we can all relate to. Every son, every daughter, every parent, every sibling, every friend. You see everybody wants to talk about the gangster mafia element of The Godfather, and say that is what it is all about. But family plays an even bigger role in the story by being the driving force behind the main characters. Family, love, loyalty, sacrifice all these elements are used in the movie to bring a standard boring mafia shootout movie to the level of greatest movie of all time. Francis Ford Coppola used as much he could to bring this point home. The wedding scene was not made up by any means but instead taken from other weddings witnessed by every Italian who has ever been to a wedding. Bringing envelopes filled with money to the bride, nieces dancing on the feet of uncle's, people waiting in line to see the father of the bride, sandwiches in white paper being tossed around. 'two gabagool, one proshootoh!' Then go to the kitchen to make spaghetti. Need a recipe? Try 'a little of oil then fry some garlic, throw in some tomatoes and tomato paste, fry it, make sure it does not stick, get it to boil, put in all your sausage and meatballs, add some wine and a little bit of sugar and that's the trick.' That recipe has been in Italian kitchens long before the cameras rolled. Need an idea for some quality time with the kids, well go to work do what you have to do and pick up some cannolis before you get home. Just remember to leave the gun and take the cannolis. Coppola always said he had to be good or no cannolis when his dad got home to share with the family. Coppola also put in his own family to work, his dad scored the movie, his sister Talia was Connie, and his daughter played the baby in the baptism scene. The family was on both sides of the family. But for me the movie revolves around Don Vito Corleone and Marlon Brando. Mario Puzo based the character of Don Corleone on his mother, everytime the Don opened his mouth all that came out was the passion of his mother, her wisdom, her ruthlessness, and her unconquerable love for her family and for life itself. Therefore only the greatest actor of the day will do to play the part. Coppola agreed and suggested either Brando or Laurence Olivier. Olivier was considered and it would have been interesting but he eventually passed on the role. Only two men wanted Brando, Coppola and Puzo. Brando had a history of being difficult and the studio executives nearly vetoed his casting. Coppola was able to make a deal with in order to cast Brando. Brando had to agree to do the movie for nothing, he had to put up a bond in order to cover cost overruns, and he had to do a screen test. They only got to the screen test because Brando transformed himself from a forty year old man into a sixty year old mafia don before their eyes in a matter of minutes. When the executives saw the footage they said ‘no no no, WOW THAT'S INCREDIBLE!’ Brando would be The Godfather. But Brando still needed a little extra help. If you watch the movie, everytime Don Corleone is speaking and stops and looks off in the distance he is reading from a card with his lines on it. He still won an oscar though. Two scenes are my favorite in the movie. One is the scene in the restaurant, I feel like I don’t need to explain it, because it is the most famous scene. Just know that without that scene the movie would not have existed. When you shoot a movie, the scenes are viewed day by day by the studio decision makers. They were hating what they were seeing, everything shot before the restaurant scene was met with cruel criticism by everyone on the outside not working on the movie. All Coppola could do was show them this scene and the movie was not only saved but validated. There are moments in the movie that other scenes build to, the restaurant was one of those scenes. You know of it’s importance because of everything that preceded it. The other scene is the meeting. Don Corleone stands before the other mafia dons and surrenders to them and their wishes. He reasons with them in order to come to a peaceful solution. But there is a catch: if you mess with my other son or if ‘he’s struck by a bolt of lightning. Then I’m going to blame some of the people in this room and that I do not forgive. So with that aside let me say that I swear, on the souls of my grandchildren, that I will not be the one that breaks the peace that we’ve made here today.’ There is a time for peace and a time for reckoning. This scene is my favorite because you believe him, you go along with his plea for peace. But the other dons do not realize it is not a surrender but a tactical retreat.
So the movie went on to make a lot of money, win a bunch of awards, and won it’s way on a bunch of lists that say it’s great. I was lucky enough to not know that when I first saw the movie. I saw it for what it was: a father and three sons. One son was intense and savage, another was sweet and innocent, another was conviving and calculating, the father was all those combined. But the father was the steadying force in all their lives. That is why when they all find out he was shot they react in ways we all would react. When you see the father lying in the street his second son is there to help but can’t, all he can do is cry and yell ‘papa.’ The first son nearly strong arms one of his father’s closest associates because he wants someone to beat up. The third son panics and tries to do whatever he can to help. That is for the audience, and that that’s how everyone relates. Finally, I’ll quote Martin Sheen: ‘The Godfather is the best filmmaking ever in the history of American cinema. There is nothing that speaks more to who we are, where we came from, what we stand for, and where we’re gonna go. That’s the work of a true genius.’ I agree. It is my favorite, of what I’ve seen of course.
".... Don Corleone."
What is it about someone you care about that sets them apart? Are they family, a friend, or someone you feel just needs help? What causes you to go the extra mile to put someone else ahead of yourself? You may find the answers in your religion, your upbringing, or in movies. For example, say your daughter goes out on a date with a guy and she is violently beaten by him and one of his friends. You go see her in the hospital and she cannot even weep because of the pain. So trying to keep your cool you press charges and try by the legal means to bring the young men to justice. It doesn't happen, their sentences are suspended. That may make you lose faith in the system that is supposed to protect you. So now you go to someone else who could help. This person is a bigshot, a pezzonovante in his own way but outside the system. You explain what happened and what you did, and all he says is 'why didn't you come to me first?' How many times in your life have some of us gone to others that don't care and asked for help instead of going to the ones that actually care. And the problem is solved. Imagine for another example that your father is in the hospital and men are coming to kill him. And you are the only one there that can help him. Imagine that you had your own dreams and your own goals that were different to what your father wanted. But in this moment you put all that aside to help your father survive. You assure him that everything will be ok and you are with him now. You bluff out the men trying to kill him and your father is saved. Most of us may never have to defend our dads from someone trying to kill him. But seeing someone laying helpless in a hospital bed in need of help we can all relate to. Every son, every daughter, every parent, every sibling, every friend. You see everybody wants to talk about the gangster mafia element of The Godfather, and say that is what it is all about. But family plays an even bigger role in the story by being the driving force behind the main characters. Family, love, loyalty, sacrifice all these elements are used in the movie to bring a standard boring mafia shootout movie to the level of greatest movie of all time. Francis Ford Coppola used as much he could to bring this point home. The wedding scene was not made up by any means but instead taken from other weddings witnessed by every Italian who has ever been to a wedding. Bringing envelopes filled with money to the bride, nieces dancing on the feet of uncle's, people waiting in line to see the father of the bride, sandwiches in white paper being tossed around. 'two gabagool, one proshootoh!' Then go to the kitchen to make spaghetti. Need a recipe? Try 'a little of oil then fry some garlic, throw in some tomatoes and tomato paste, fry it, make sure it does not stick, get it to boil, put in all your sausage and meatballs, add some wine and a little bit of sugar and that's the trick.' That recipe has been in Italian kitchens long before the cameras rolled. Need an idea for some quality time with the kids, well go to work do what you have to do and pick up some cannolis before you get home. Just remember to leave the gun and take the cannolis. Coppola always said he had to be good or no cannolis when his dad got home to share with the family. Coppola also put in his own family to work, his dad scored the movie, his sister Talia was Connie, and his daughter played the baby in the baptism scene. The family was on both sides of the family. But for me the movie revolves around Don Vito Corleone and Marlon Brando. Mario Puzo based the character of Don Corleone on his mother, everytime the Don opened his mouth all that came out was the passion of his mother, her wisdom, her ruthlessness, and her unconquerable love for her family and for life itself. Therefore only the greatest actor of the day will do to play the part. Coppola agreed and suggested either Brando or Laurence Olivier. Olivier was considered and it would have been interesting but he eventually passed on the role. Only two men wanted Brando, Coppola and Puzo. Brando had a history of being difficult and the studio executives nearly vetoed his casting. Coppola was able to make a deal with in order to cast Brando. Brando had to agree to do the movie for nothing, he had to put up a bond in order to cover cost overruns, and he had to do a screen test. They only got to the screen test because Brando transformed himself from a forty year old man into a sixty year old mafia don before their eyes in a matter of minutes. When the executives saw the footage they said ‘no no no, WOW THAT'S INCREDIBLE!’ Brando would be The Godfather. But Brando still needed a little extra help. If you watch the movie, everytime Don Corleone is speaking and stops and looks off in the distance he is reading from a card with his lines on it. He still won an oscar though. Two scenes are my favorite in the movie. One is the scene in the restaurant, I feel like I don’t need to explain it, because it is the most famous scene. Just know that without that scene the movie would not have existed. When you shoot a movie, the scenes are viewed day by day by the studio decision makers. They were hating what they were seeing, everything shot before the restaurant scene was met with cruel criticism by everyone on the outside not working on the movie. All Coppola could do was show them this scene and the movie was not only saved but validated. There are moments in the movie that other scenes build to, the restaurant was one of those scenes. You know of it’s importance because of everything that preceded it. The other scene is the meeting. Don Corleone stands before the other mafia dons and surrenders to them and their wishes. He reasons with them in order to come to a peaceful solution. But there is a catch: if you mess with my other son or if ‘he’s struck by a bolt of lightning. Then I’m going to blame some of the people in this room and that I do not forgive. So with that aside let me say that I swear, on the souls of my grandchildren, that I will not be the one that breaks the peace that we’ve made here today.’ There is a time for peace and a time for reckoning. This scene is my favorite because you believe him, you go along with his plea for peace. But the other dons do not realize it is not a surrender but a tactical retreat.
So the movie went on to make a lot of money, win a bunch of awards, and won it’s way on a bunch of lists that say it’s great. I was lucky enough to not know that when I first saw the movie. I saw it for what it was: a father and three sons. One son was intense and savage, another was sweet and innocent, another was conviving and calculating, the father was all those combined. But the father was the steadying force in all their lives. That is why when they all find out he was shot they react in ways we all would react. When you see the father lying in the street his second son is there to help but can’t, all he can do is cry and yell ‘papa.’ The first son nearly strong arms one of his father’s closest associates because he wants someone to beat up. The third son panics and tries to do whatever he can to help. That is for the audience, and that that’s how everyone relates. Finally, I’ll quote Martin Sheen: ‘The Godfather is the best filmmaking ever in the history of American cinema. There is nothing that speaks more to who we are, where we came from, what we stand for, and where we’re gonna go. That’s the work of a true genius.’ I agree. It is my favorite, of what I’ve seen of course.
".... Don Corleone."
Annie Chanse (15 KP) rated Shadows & Dreams in Books
Dec 19, 2017
Review** spoiler alert ** *Warning: contains spoilers, bad words, and quite a long rant*
To be honest, I was very disappointed in this book. It had a great premise, which meant it had the potential to be a really good story, but the writing style of the author just completely ruined this book for me.
The basic idea behind the story is that Kate Kane, a paranormal PI, sets off on a case to find the brother of a woman she slept with once, and during this investigation, she runs into ALL MANNER OF TROUBLE. There are vampires and werewolves and ex-girlfriends around every corner, just lurking and waiting to pounce on Miss Kane. It's a very busy and involved story, and if it had been better written, I would have easily given it four stars at least, but there was just TOO much about this book -- style-wise -- that drove me insane.
For instance:
1. The plot, itself, is actually fairly well thought out and developed and is nowhere NEAR as cheesy as it sounds when you hear, "Vampires fighting werewolves," -- which, let's be honest, these days is so trite and overdone that it is scoffed at on a regular basis. However, there IS a good story in this novel. But the way Hall writes the not-cheesy story is so cheesy that it makes you THINK the story is cheesy. A lot of cheese, huh? A little confusing? Well then, let me give you an example.
Page 7-8: "Truth be told it was a little bit awkward, but my social weirdness threshold has gone way up since my girlfriend tried to murder my ex-girlfriend because her ex-girlfriend tried to murder her."
Okay... a bit ridiculous, especially seven/eight pages in, but I can roll with it. However, at the bottom of page eight:
Kane asks, "Who saw him last?"
Her assistant -- who is actually a statue brought to life and gifted to Kate by a group of rats who are apparently all seeing and all knowing God-types -- says, "I don't know. [...] Probably somebody at the hospital."
Kane asks, "Which one?"
And the assistant replies with this fantastic line: "The Whittington. He broke his leg changing a light bulb. Because he was standing on a swivel chair because he's an idiot."
Okay, I concede that maybe this line is supposed to sound ridiculous and funny, so I can even let that one slide. But then, three pages later, Hall completely turns me off to the book with this:
"Well, fuck. I was about to be hired by a woman I'd very nearly slept with to find her missing brother who was working for the woman who'd left me for a tech startup at the tech startup she left me for."
Wh-wh-what?! Are you kidding me? Could that sentence BE anymore convoluted or that plot-point any more ridiculously stereotypical?
And what is truly awful is that the story itself REALLY WASN'T THAT BAD. I mean, the writing was awful, which, overall, meant that the novel was -- in my opinion, of course -- bad, but the way the story progressed WAS interesting. It was nowhere near as bad as these 'recaps' by the main character make it sound, but the problem is that Hall throws in these inner-monologues for Kane ALL throughout the book, and they are terrible! Which, in turn, decreases the value of the entire story.
Another example falls right on the heels of the page 11 jewel.
Page 14: "I really really hoped this wasn't going to be another zombie plague. There'd been an outbreak when I'd taken Eve up to Lake Windermere for our third anniversary, and we'd spent the whole weekend under siege in the hotel, making molotovs from the minibar and clubbing re-animated tourists to death with souvenir walking sticks."
Really? Zombies now? On top of the vampires, witches, and werewolves? Can we POSSIBLY fit anymore para into this normal?
Enough with that.
Now on to point number 2. The girl on girl sex scenes in this book between sexy, snarky PI and her vampire girlfriend, the Prince (yes, Prince) of Cups, should be hot, right? No. They are forced, fake, and ridiculous. Halfway through the first one, I thought, "Jesus. This isn't lesbian sex. This is lesbian sex if it was written by a man who WISHES he could see some lesbian sex." That was the point at which I decided to look up more info on Alexis Hall, and I found out that he is, in fact, a man, which at least explains the sex scenes.
#3. Speaking of sex scenes, Hall also has this really irritating -- and distracting -- habit of throwing in random, explicitly sexual thoughts at TOTALLY inappropriate times. Right in the middle of the most stressful situations -- being locked up, about to be killed, thrown in prison/on trial -- Kate Kane begins inner-monologuing with herself about how much she'd like to fuck whatever female happens to be standing in front of her. RIDICULOUS! And annoying. Hated it.
4. One of the MOST annoying things about this book, however, was that it was in DESPERATE need of a SERIOUS case of editing. All throughout the book there were glaring errors that any first year college student should have caught while reading. I'm willing to discount SOME of these "errors" as simply being lost in translation, as the book is written with a British tone, and I am very much American. However, SOME of these errors simply CANNOT be due to anything other than careless editing.
For instance, page 113: "It's main distinguishing feature, right, was that was it was blue."
WAS that WAS it WAS blue? What does that even mean? Oh, yes, it means that no one bothered editing this beast before printing.
Page 141: "Piercing the heart will paralyse, but it won't kill, and anything will do, it doesn't have to wood."
Okay, so maybe the "paralyse" is simply British, but surely the "doesn't have to wood" bit needs a "be" in there somewhere, right?
Page 157: "Have we have achieved case closed, Miss Kane?"
Yes, yes have we have.
There are several -- SEVERAL -- more examples of these type errors, but I'm not about to point them all out. If you read the book, I'm sure you'll easily catch them on your own.
5. Another thing that drove me NUTS was the repetition. The awful thing is I'm fairly certain that Hall used these repetitious lines PURPOSELY to create some kind of effect -- humor, maybe? Whatever the desired result, it failed to do anything other than annoy me.
For instance, page 163: "'Hi. So. Look.' I tried to find a way to express the fact I had some good news and some bad news that wasn't I've got some good news and some bad news. 'I've got some good news and some bad news.'"
...blink... ...falls over...
Page 177: "All the more reason to tell them. [...] If they know that we know that she has returned, then they will not be tempted to conspire against us out of the false belief that we do not know. Of course, they may already know, but at present, we have no way to know what they know. If we tell them, we will know what they know, and all we will not know is how long they have known it."
Oh. Jumping. Jesus. On. A. Pogo. Stick. Please tell me you aren't serious.
And there was this one thing that repeated over and over again throughout the book. The first time, it was actually pretty clever. The second time, even, was okay. But by the time I'd read it nine times -- yes, NINE TIMES, no exaggeration whatsoever -- I was ready to never EVER read anything like it ever again.
This particular phrase was something Kate Kane internalized or muttered aloud to herself each time she decided to do something stupid OR she felt her life was in danger. The basic format went something like this:
"Here lies Kate Kane, died peacefully in her sleep aged 94. Beloved daughter."
The "Here lies Kate Kane" part remained constant, as did the "Beloved daughter." It was only the middle part that changed, for instance, "Here lies Kate Kate. Should have minded her own business. Beloved daughter." Or perhaps, "Here lies Kate Kane. She made a difference to dozens. Beloved daughter."
This continued NINE TIMES. It is not cute, funny, or clever after about the second time, definitely after the third. BUT NINE TIMES?! Come on!
And finally, my last complaint.
6. Several of the items, scenes, quotes, etc. in this book seemed waaaaaaaaaay too close to things from other books for my taste. Perhaps it is simply a coincidence and the author did not intentionally siphon plot points and details from other authors -- except, of course, when he obviously did in his quotations, such as his use of "Not all those who wander are lost" and "As old as my tongue, a little bit older than my teeth" which are DIRECTLY taken from other books, but I'm hoping those were intentional and not attempted-to-get-away-with-it plagiarism.
But there are several things in this novel that could have been taken from Jim Butcher's "Dresden Files", Lewis' "Narnia" chronicles, and Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" series. I'm hoping, however, that they weren't, but they were very, very similar.
All in all, I'm disappointed to say that I was not a fan of this book at all, and I will most likely not be reading anymore Kate Kane books.
To be honest, I was very disappointed in this book. It had a great premise, which meant it had the potential to be a really good story, but the writing style of the author just completely ruined this book for me.
The basic idea behind the story is that Kate Kane, a paranormal PI, sets off on a case to find the brother of a woman she slept with once, and during this investigation, she runs into ALL MANNER OF TROUBLE. There are vampires and werewolves and ex-girlfriends around every corner, just lurking and waiting to pounce on Miss Kane. It's a very busy and involved story, and if it had been better written, I would have easily given it four stars at least, but there was just TOO much about this book -- style-wise -- that drove me insane.
For instance:
1. The plot, itself, is actually fairly well thought out and developed and is nowhere NEAR as cheesy as it sounds when you hear, "Vampires fighting werewolves," -- which, let's be honest, these days is so trite and overdone that it is scoffed at on a regular basis. However, there IS a good story in this novel. But the way Hall writes the not-cheesy story is so cheesy that it makes you THINK the story is cheesy. A lot of cheese, huh? A little confusing? Well then, let me give you an example.
Page 7-8: "Truth be told it was a little bit awkward, but my social weirdness threshold has gone way up since my girlfriend tried to murder my ex-girlfriend because her ex-girlfriend tried to murder her."
Okay... a bit ridiculous, especially seven/eight pages in, but I can roll with it. However, at the bottom of page eight:
Kane asks, "Who saw him last?"
Her assistant -- who is actually a statue brought to life and gifted to Kate by a group of rats who are apparently all seeing and all knowing God-types -- says, "I don't know. [...] Probably somebody at the hospital."
Kane asks, "Which one?"
And the assistant replies with this fantastic line: "The Whittington. He broke his leg changing a light bulb. Because he was standing on a swivel chair because he's an idiot."
Okay, I concede that maybe this line is supposed to sound ridiculous and funny, so I can even let that one slide. But then, three pages later, Hall completely turns me off to the book with this:
"Well, fuck. I was about to be hired by a woman I'd very nearly slept with to find her missing brother who was working for the woman who'd left me for a tech startup at the tech startup she left me for."
Wh-wh-what?! Are you kidding me? Could that sentence BE anymore convoluted or that plot-point any more ridiculously stereotypical?
And what is truly awful is that the story itself REALLY WASN'T THAT BAD. I mean, the writing was awful, which, overall, meant that the novel was -- in my opinion, of course -- bad, but the way the story progressed WAS interesting. It was nowhere near as bad as these 'recaps' by the main character make it sound, but the problem is that Hall throws in these inner-monologues for Kane ALL throughout the book, and they are terrible! Which, in turn, decreases the value of the entire story.
Another example falls right on the heels of the page 11 jewel.
Page 14: "I really really hoped this wasn't going to be another zombie plague. There'd been an outbreak when I'd taken Eve up to Lake Windermere for our third anniversary, and we'd spent the whole weekend under siege in the hotel, making molotovs from the minibar and clubbing re-animated tourists to death with souvenir walking sticks."
Really? Zombies now? On top of the vampires, witches, and werewolves? Can we POSSIBLY fit anymore para into this normal?
Enough with that.
Now on to point number 2. The girl on girl sex scenes in this book between sexy, snarky PI and her vampire girlfriend, the Prince (yes, Prince) of Cups, should be hot, right? No. They are forced, fake, and ridiculous. Halfway through the first one, I thought, "Jesus. This isn't lesbian sex. This is lesbian sex if it was written by a man who WISHES he could see some lesbian sex." That was the point at which I decided to look up more info on Alexis Hall, and I found out that he is, in fact, a man, which at least explains the sex scenes.
#3. Speaking of sex scenes, Hall also has this really irritating -- and distracting -- habit of throwing in random, explicitly sexual thoughts at TOTALLY inappropriate times. Right in the middle of the most stressful situations -- being locked up, about to be killed, thrown in prison/on trial -- Kate Kane begins inner-monologuing with herself about how much she'd like to fuck whatever female happens to be standing in front of her. RIDICULOUS! And annoying. Hated it.
4. One of the MOST annoying things about this book, however, was that it was in DESPERATE need of a SERIOUS case of editing. All throughout the book there were glaring errors that any first year college student should have caught while reading. I'm willing to discount SOME of these "errors" as simply being lost in translation, as the book is written with a British tone, and I am very much American. However, SOME of these errors simply CANNOT be due to anything other than careless editing.
For instance, page 113: "It's main distinguishing feature, right, was that was it was blue."
WAS that WAS it WAS blue? What does that even mean? Oh, yes, it means that no one bothered editing this beast before printing.
Page 141: "Piercing the heart will paralyse, but it won't kill, and anything will do, it doesn't have to wood."
Okay, so maybe the "paralyse" is simply British, but surely the "doesn't have to wood" bit needs a "be" in there somewhere, right?
Page 157: "Have we have achieved case closed, Miss Kane?"
Yes, yes have we have.
There are several -- SEVERAL -- more examples of these type errors, but I'm not about to point them all out. If you read the book, I'm sure you'll easily catch them on your own.
5. Another thing that drove me NUTS was the repetition. The awful thing is I'm fairly certain that Hall used these repetitious lines PURPOSELY to create some kind of effect -- humor, maybe? Whatever the desired result, it failed to do anything other than annoy me.
For instance, page 163: "'Hi. So. Look.' I tried to find a way to express the fact I had some good news and some bad news that wasn't I've got some good news and some bad news. 'I've got some good news and some bad news.'"
...blink... ...falls over...
Page 177: "All the more reason to tell them. [...] If they know that we know that she has returned, then they will not be tempted to conspire against us out of the false belief that we do not know. Of course, they may already know, but at present, we have no way to know what they know. If we tell them, we will know what they know, and all we will not know is how long they have known it."
Oh. Jumping. Jesus. On. A. Pogo. Stick. Please tell me you aren't serious.
And there was this one thing that repeated over and over again throughout the book. The first time, it was actually pretty clever. The second time, even, was okay. But by the time I'd read it nine times -- yes, NINE TIMES, no exaggeration whatsoever -- I was ready to never EVER read anything like it ever again.
This particular phrase was something Kate Kane internalized or muttered aloud to herself each time she decided to do something stupid OR she felt her life was in danger. The basic format went something like this:
"Here lies Kate Kane, died peacefully in her sleep aged 94. Beloved daughter."
The "Here lies Kate Kane" part remained constant, as did the "Beloved daughter." It was only the middle part that changed, for instance, "Here lies Kate Kate. Should have minded her own business. Beloved daughter." Or perhaps, "Here lies Kate Kane. She made a difference to dozens. Beloved daughter."
This continued NINE TIMES. It is not cute, funny, or clever after about the second time, definitely after the third. BUT NINE TIMES?! Come on!
And finally, my last complaint.
6. Several of the items, scenes, quotes, etc. in this book seemed waaaaaaaaaay too close to things from other books for my taste. Perhaps it is simply a coincidence and the author did not intentionally siphon plot points and details from other authors -- except, of course, when he obviously did in his quotations, such as his use of "Not all those who wander are lost" and "As old as my tongue, a little bit older than my teeth" which are DIRECTLY taken from other books, but I'm hoping those were intentional and not attempted-to-get-away-with-it plagiarism.
But there are several things in this novel that could have been taken from Jim Butcher's "Dresden Files", Lewis' "Narnia" chronicles, and Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" series. I'm hoping, however, that they weren't, but they were very, very similar.
All in all, I'm disappointed to say that I was not a fan of this book at all, and I will most likely not be reading anymore Kate Kane books.
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated Writings Of Thomas Paine Volume 4 (1794 1796); The Age Of Reason in Books
Jun 29, 2018
Thomas Paine was a political theorist who was perhaps best known for his support for the American Revolution in his pamphlet Common Sense. In what might be his second best known work, The Age of Reason, Paine argued in favor of deism and against the Christian religion and its conception of God. By deism it is meant the belief in a creator God who does not violate the laws of nature by communicating through revelation or miracles The book was very successful and widely read partly due to the fact that it was written in a style which appealed to a popular audience and often implemented a sarcastic, derisive tone to make its points.
The book seems to have had three major objectives: the support of deism, the ridicule of what Paine found loathsome in Christian theology, and the demonstration of how poor an example the Bible is as a reflection of God.
In a sense, Paine's arguments against Christian theology and scripture were meant to prop up his deistic philosophy. Paine hoped that in demonizing Christianity while giving evidences for God, he would somehow have made the case for deism. But this is not so. If Christianity is false, but God exists nonetheless, we are not left only with deism. There are an infinite number of possibilities for us to examine regarding the nature of God, and far too many left over once we have eliminated the obviously false ones. In favor of deism Paine has only one argument—his dislike of supernatural revelation, which is to say that deism appeals to his culturally derived preferences. In any case, Paine's thinking on the matter seemed to be thus: if supernatural revelation could be shown to be inadequate and the development of complex theology shown to be an error, one could still salvage a belief in God as Creator, but not as an interloper in human affairs who required mediators.
That being said, in his support of deism, Paine makes some arguments to demonstrate the reasonableness in belief in, if not the logical necessity of the existence of, God which could be equally used by Christians.
For instance, just as the apostle Paul argued in his epistle to the Romans that, "what can be known about God is plain to [even pagans], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:19-20, ESV), so also Paine can say that, "the Creation speaketh an universal language [which points to the existence of God], independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be."
The key point on which Paine differs from Paul on this issue is in his optimism about man's ability to reason to God without His assisting from the outside. Whereas Paul sees the plainness of God from natural revelation as an argument against the inherent goodness of a species which can read the record of nature and nevertheless rejects its Source's obvious existence, Paine thinks that nature and reason can and do lead us directly to the knowledge of God's existence apart from any gracious overtures or direct revelation.
On the witness of nature, Paine claims, and is quite correct, that, "THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man." What is not plainly clear, however, is that man is free enough from the noetic effects of sin to reach such an obvious conclusion on his own. Indeed, the attempts of mankind to create a religion which represents the truth have invariably landed them at paganism. By paganism I mean a system of belief based, as Yehezkel Kaufmann and John N. Oswalt have shown, on continuity.iv In polytheism, even the supernatural is not really supernatural, but is perhaps in some way above humans while not being altogether distinct from us. What happens to the gods is merely what happens to human beings and the natural world writ large, which is why the gods are, like us, victims of fate, and why pagan fertility rituals have attempted to influence nature by influencing the gods which represent it in accordance with the deeper magic of the eternal universe we all inhabit.
When mankind has looked at nature without the benefit of supernatural revelation, he has not been consciously aware of a Being outside of nature which is necessarily responsible for it. His reasoning to metaphysics is based entirely on his own naturalistic categories derived from his own experience. According to Moses, it took God revealing Himself to the Hebrews for anyone to understand what Paine thinks anyone can plainly see.
The goal of deism is to hold onto what the western mind, which values extreme independence of thought, views as attractive in theism while casting aside what it finds distasteful. But as C.S. Lewis remarked, Aslan is not a tame lion. If a sovereign God exists, He cannot be limited by your desires of what you'd like Him to be. For this reason, the deism of men like Paine served as a cultural stepping stone toward the atheism of later intellectuals.
For Paine, as for other deists and atheists like him, it is not that Christianity has been subjected to reason and found wanting, but that it has been subjected to his own private and culturally-determined tastes and preferences and has failed to satisfy. This is the flipside of the anti-religious claim that those who believe in a given religion only do so because of their cultural conditioning: the anti-religionist is also conditioned in a similar way. Of course, how one comes to believe a certain thing has no bearing on whether that thing is true in itself, and this is true whether Christianity, atheism, or any other view is correct. But it must be stated that the deist or atheist is not immune from the epistemic difficulties which he so condescendingly heaps on theists.
One of the befuddling ironies of Paine's work is that around the time he was writing about the revealed religions as, “no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit," the French were turning churches into “temples of reason” and murdering thousands at the guillotine (an instrument of execution now most strongly identified with France's godless reign of terror). Paine, who nearly lost his own life during the French Revolution, saw the danger of this atheism and hoped to stay its progress, despite the risk to his own life in attempting to do so.
What is odd is that Paine managed to blame this violent atheism upon the Christian faith! Obfuscated Paine:
"The Idea, always dangerous to Society as it is derogatory to the Almighty, — that priests could forgive sins, — though it seemed to exist no longer, had blunted the feelings of humanity, and callously prepared men for the commission of all crimes. The intolerant spirit of church persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, stiled Revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition; and the Guillotine of the Stake. I saw many of my most intimate friends destroyed; others daily carried to prison; and I had reason to believe, and had also intimations given me, that the same danger was approaching myself."
That Robespierre's deism finally managed to supplant the revolutionary state's atheism and that peace, love, and understanding did not then spread throughout the land undermines Paine's claims. Paine felt that the revolution in politics, especially as represented in America, would necessarily lead to a revolution in religion, and that this religious revolution would result in wide acceptance of deism. The common link between these two revolutions was the idea that the individual man was sovereign and could determine for himself what was right and wrong based on his autonomous reason. What Paine was too myopic to see was that in France's violence and atheism was found the logical consequence of his individualistic philosophy. In summary, it is not Christianity which is dangerous, but the spirit of autonomy which leads inevitably into authoritarianism by way of human desire.
As should be clear by now, Paine failed to understand that human beings have a strong tendency to set impartial reason aside and to simply evaluate reality based on their desires and psychological states. This is no more obvious than in his own ideas as expressed in The Age of Reason. Like Paine's tendency to designate every book in the Old Testament which he likes as having been written originally by a gentile and translated into Hebrew, so many of his criticisms of Christian theology are far more a reflection upon himself than of revealed Christianity. One has only to look at Paine's description of Jesus Christ as a “virtuous reformer and revolutionist” to marvel that Paine was so poor at introspection so as to not understand that he was describing himself.
There is much more that could be said about this work, but in the interest of being somewhat concise, I'll end my comments here. If you found this analysis to be useful, be sure to check out my profile and look for my work discussing Paine and other anti-Christian writers coming soon.
The book seems to have had three major objectives: the support of deism, the ridicule of what Paine found loathsome in Christian theology, and the demonstration of how poor an example the Bible is as a reflection of God.
In a sense, Paine's arguments against Christian theology and scripture were meant to prop up his deistic philosophy. Paine hoped that in demonizing Christianity while giving evidences for God, he would somehow have made the case for deism. But this is not so. If Christianity is false, but God exists nonetheless, we are not left only with deism. There are an infinite number of possibilities for us to examine regarding the nature of God, and far too many left over once we have eliminated the obviously false ones. In favor of deism Paine has only one argument—his dislike of supernatural revelation, which is to say that deism appeals to his culturally derived preferences. In any case, Paine's thinking on the matter seemed to be thus: if supernatural revelation could be shown to be inadequate and the development of complex theology shown to be an error, one could still salvage a belief in God as Creator, but not as an interloper in human affairs who required mediators.
That being said, in his support of deism, Paine makes some arguments to demonstrate the reasonableness in belief in, if not the logical necessity of the existence of, God which could be equally used by Christians.
For instance, just as the apostle Paul argued in his epistle to the Romans that, "what can be known about God is plain to [even pagans], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:19-20, ESV), so also Paine can say that, "the Creation speaketh an universal language [which points to the existence of God], independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be."
The key point on which Paine differs from Paul on this issue is in his optimism about man's ability to reason to God without His assisting from the outside. Whereas Paul sees the plainness of God from natural revelation as an argument against the inherent goodness of a species which can read the record of nature and nevertheless rejects its Source's obvious existence, Paine thinks that nature and reason can and do lead us directly to the knowledge of God's existence apart from any gracious overtures or direct revelation.
On the witness of nature, Paine claims, and is quite correct, that, "THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man." What is not plainly clear, however, is that man is free enough from the noetic effects of sin to reach such an obvious conclusion on his own. Indeed, the attempts of mankind to create a religion which represents the truth have invariably landed them at paganism. By paganism I mean a system of belief based, as Yehezkel Kaufmann and John N. Oswalt have shown, on continuity.iv In polytheism, even the supernatural is not really supernatural, but is perhaps in some way above humans while not being altogether distinct from us. What happens to the gods is merely what happens to human beings and the natural world writ large, which is why the gods are, like us, victims of fate, and why pagan fertility rituals have attempted to influence nature by influencing the gods which represent it in accordance with the deeper magic of the eternal universe we all inhabit.
When mankind has looked at nature without the benefit of supernatural revelation, he has not been consciously aware of a Being outside of nature which is necessarily responsible for it. His reasoning to metaphysics is based entirely on his own naturalistic categories derived from his own experience. According to Moses, it took God revealing Himself to the Hebrews for anyone to understand what Paine thinks anyone can plainly see.
The goal of deism is to hold onto what the western mind, which values extreme independence of thought, views as attractive in theism while casting aside what it finds distasteful. But as C.S. Lewis remarked, Aslan is not a tame lion. If a sovereign God exists, He cannot be limited by your desires of what you'd like Him to be. For this reason, the deism of men like Paine served as a cultural stepping stone toward the atheism of later intellectuals.
For Paine, as for other deists and atheists like him, it is not that Christianity has been subjected to reason and found wanting, but that it has been subjected to his own private and culturally-determined tastes and preferences and has failed to satisfy. This is the flipside of the anti-religious claim that those who believe in a given religion only do so because of their cultural conditioning: the anti-religionist is also conditioned in a similar way. Of course, how one comes to believe a certain thing has no bearing on whether that thing is true in itself, and this is true whether Christianity, atheism, or any other view is correct. But it must be stated that the deist or atheist is not immune from the epistemic difficulties which he so condescendingly heaps on theists.
One of the befuddling ironies of Paine's work is that around the time he was writing about the revealed religions as, “no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit," the French were turning churches into “temples of reason” and murdering thousands at the guillotine (an instrument of execution now most strongly identified with France's godless reign of terror). Paine, who nearly lost his own life during the French Revolution, saw the danger of this atheism and hoped to stay its progress, despite the risk to his own life in attempting to do so.
What is odd is that Paine managed to blame this violent atheism upon the Christian faith! Obfuscated Paine:
"The Idea, always dangerous to Society as it is derogatory to the Almighty, — that priests could forgive sins, — though it seemed to exist no longer, had blunted the feelings of humanity, and callously prepared men for the commission of all crimes. The intolerant spirit of church persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, stiled Revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition; and the Guillotine of the Stake. I saw many of my most intimate friends destroyed; others daily carried to prison; and I had reason to believe, and had also intimations given me, that the same danger was approaching myself."
That Robespierre's deism finally managed to supplant the revolutionary state's atheism and that peace, love, and understanding did not then spread throughout the land undermines Paine's claims. Paine felt that the revolution in politics, especially as represented in America, would necessarily lead to a revolution in religion, and that this religious revolution would result in wide acceptance of deism. The common link between these two revolutions was the idea that the individual man was sovereign and could determine for himself what was right and wrong based on his autonomous reason. What Paine was too myopic to see was that in France's violence and atheism was found the logical consequence of his individualistic philosophy. In summary, it is not Christianity which is dangerous, but the spirit of autonomy which leads inevitably into authoritarianism by way of human desire.
As should be clear by now, Paine failed to understand that human beings have a strong tendency to set impartial reason aside and to simply evaluate reality based on their desires and psychological states. This is no more obvious than in his own ideas as expressed in The Age of Reason. Like Paine's tendency to designate every book in the Old Testament which he likes as having been written originally by a gentile and translated into Hebrew, so many of his criticisms of Christian theology are far more a reflection upon himself than of revealed Christianity. One has only to look at Paine's description of Jesus Christ as a “virtuous reformer and revolutionist” to marvel that Paine was so poor at introspection so as to not understand that he was describing himself.
There is much more that could be said about this work, but in the interest of being somewhat concise, I'll end my comments here. If you found this analysis to be useful, be sure to check out my profile and look for my work discussing Paine and other anti-Christian writers coming soon.