Search
Search results
Anyone who knows me knows that I am a hardcore Shakespeare fan. One of my bosses at work knows this and let me borrow her copy of this book thinking that it would interest me. Unfortunately, it fell a little flat.
I do not agree with the main argument of this biography: that William Shakespeare was, in fact, only a pen name for Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. No. I do not agree with this claim, like so many other Shakespeare scholars and lovers because the "facts" put forth are just very thinly stretched ideas and concepts that cannot be proven.
This book, instead of pushing me to think about how this fact could even possibly be true, is more about the life of Edward de Vere and how some of the circumstances in his life would be able to loosely connect to the plays Shakespeare had written. In tying in the plays, Anderson thinks he is making a stronger claim for his argument, but is honestly just trying to connect things that are unalike to "prove" what he is thinking. As an English major, I don't really like that way of thinking much.
Most of what he was trying to argue could have been left out and, instead, just have the appendices left in there. In the approximately sixty pages of the four appendices, he stated what over three hundred pages could not. No, I do not agree with the argument he is making, but it seems like it is stronger and more coherent in the appendix.
I want to point out a specific quotation from the Appendix A on page 381 to make a point about this book. It states: The thesis of this book, the "Oxfordian" proposition that Edward de Vere was Shake-speare, is a theory built on circumstantial evidence. There is no single "smoking gun" document that leads one inexorably to the conclusion that de Vere wrote Hamlet, King Lear, the Sonnets, etc." I understand that it is difficult to try to prove a theory that many argue against (myself included), but basing your argument solely on circumstantial evidence is not the way to go. It makes the argument, at least to me, seem less realistic and, in all honesty, difficult to agree with. If you cannot prove someone is guilty solely based on circumstantial evidence, you should not try to prove a complex argument that a famous playwright was not a real person, but, in fact, a pseudonym for another historical figure around the same time.
The "facts" that de Vere's life has similar qualities to the plays written by Shakespeare leading to the thought that de Vere, himself, is Shakespeare is a stretch, and not a convincing one at that.
Overall, I did not enjoy this book and I did not find it convincing at all. It felt more like a history lesson about the background of Edward de Vere rather than any kind of argument towards the idea that he could have been Shakespeare.
In my heart of hearts, I will always believe that William Shakespeare was, in fact, a real man by the name of William Shakespeare, not some made up name for a man who wanted to keep his private life separate from the public.
I do not agree with the main argument of this biography: that William Shakespeare was, in fact, only a pen name for Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. No. I do not agree with this claim, like so many other Shakespeare scholars and lovers because the "facts" put forth are just very thinly stretched ideas and concepts that cannot be proven.
This book, instead of pushing me to think about how this fact could even possibly be true, is more about the life of Edward de Vere and how some of the circumstances in his life would be able to loosely connect to the plays Shakespeare had written. In tying in the plays, Anderson thinks he is making a stronger claim for his argument, but is honestly just trying to connect things that are unalike to "prove" what he is thinking. As an English major, I don't really like that way of thinking much.
Most of what he was trying to argue could have been left out and, instead, just have the appendices left in there. In the approximately sixty pages of the four appendices, he stated what over three hundred pages could not. No, I do not agree with the argument he is making, but it seems like it is stronger and more coherent in the appendix.
I want to point out a specific quotation from the Appendix A on page 381 to make a point about this book. It states: The thesis of this book, the "Oxfordian" proposition that Edward de Vere was Shake-speare, is a theory built on circumstantial evidence. There is no single "smoking gun" document that leads one inexorably to the conclusion that de Vere wrote Hamlet, King Lear, the Sonnets, etc." I understand that it is difficult to try to prove a theory that many argue against (myself included), but basing your argument solely on circumstantial evidence is not the way to go. It makes the argument, at least to me, seem less realistic and, in all honesty, difficult to agree with. If you cannot prove someone is guilty solely based on circumstantial evidence, you should not try to prove a complex argument that a famous playwright was not a real person, but, in fact, a pseudonym for another historical figure around the same time.
The "facts" that de Vere's life has similar qualities to the plays written by Shakespeare leading to the thought that de Vere, himself, is Shakespeare is a stretch, and not a convincing one at that.
Overall, I did not enjoy this book and I did not find it convincing at all. It felt more like a history lesson about the background of Edward de Vere rather than any kind of argument towards the idea that he could have been Shakespeare.
In my heart of hearts, I will always believe that William Shakespeare was, in fact, a real man by the name of William Shakespeare, not some made up name for a man who wanted to keep his private life separate from the public.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Licorice Pizza (2021) in Movies
Mar 9, 2022
Disjointed
The films of Director Paul Thomas Anderson is a bit of an “acquired taste”, moviegoers generally fall into one of 2 camps. (1) those that LOVE what he does (and thinks he is one of the greatest Directors of All Time) and (2) those that don’t.
I thought I fell into the 2nd camp, but upon reviewing his portfolio of work for this review (HARD EIGHT, BOOGIE NIGHTS, PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE and THERE WILL BE BLOOD), I realized that I pretty much liked whatever he had done, but with his last few films (THE MASTER, INHERENT VICE, THE PHANTOM THREAD) I am finding that “PTA” (as his fans call him) is becoming just a little too “artsy” and pretentious for my tastes. He has fallen too in love with his material - and artistic style - to objectively look at a film and realize that it needs to move along at a brisker pace.
Such is the case with his latest film, LICORICE PIZZA.
A memory of his youth, LICORICE PIZZA follows the relationship of a pair of mismatched young adults as they work their way through the early 1970’s in search of themselves and love.
This film is a series of scenes stitched together to tell a story and the problem with it is that it made this film seem disjointed. The central “get together already” love story of the main 2 characters is supposed to be the through-line of the film, but when this through-line breaks (as it often does here) it is detrimental to the flow of the story.
Based, loosely, on the real-life exploits of PTA’s friend, Producer Gary Goetzman, LICORICE PIZZA stars Cooper Hoffman (son of Phillip Seymour Hoffman) as Gary Valentine and Alana Haim (of the Sister Act Musical Group HAIM) as Alana as they have an on-again/off-again friendship that SHOULD BE a romance, but isn’t (kind of like WHEN HARRY MET SALLY). They circumnavigate circa 1973 Los Angeles running into fictionalized portrayals of famous people like Producer Jon Peters (Bradley Cooper) and Film Actor Jack Holden (Sean Penn) an amalgamation of William Holden and Steve McQueen.
The central performances of Hoffman and Haim are competent enough, but never rises to anything more than that, which pulls this film down for one or the other of them is in every scene . The various actors doing extended cameos (like Cooper and Penn) seem to be having fun chewing up the scenery, but they are acting in a completely different style of film than Hoffman and Haim are and our 2 leads don’t stand a chance of standing out compared to these over-the-top performances.
Blame for all of this needs to be laid on Anderson (Oscar Nominated for his Direction in this film). He tried to give us a “slice of life” nostalgia piece like AMERICAN GRAFFITI or ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD, but he just doesn’t pull it off.
An Oscar Nominee for Best Picture, LICORICE PIZZA seems to be riding the wave of nostalgia both for the times depicted - and the artist who put this film on the screen - but it just isn’t that good of a film.
Letter Grade B- (for Cooper’s and Penn’s scenes in this)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I thought I fell into the 2nd camp, but upon reviewing his portfolio of work for this review (HARD EIGHT, BOOGIE NIGHTS, PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE and THERE WILL BE BLOOD), I realized that I pretty much liked whatever he had done, but with his last few films (THE MASTER, INHERENT VICE, THE PHANTOM THREAD) I am finding that “PTA” (as his fans call him) is becoming just a little too “artsy” and pretentious for my tastes. He has fallen too in love with his material - and artistic style - to objectively look at a film and realize that it needs to move along at a brisker pace.
Such is the case with his latest film, LICORICE PIZZA.
A memory of his youth, LICORICE PIZZA follows the relationship of a pair of mismatched young adults as they work their way through the early 1970’s in search of themselves and love.
This film is a series of scenes stitched together to tell a story and the problem with it is that it made this film seem disjointed. The central “get together already” love story of the main 2 characters is supposed to be the through-line of the film, but when this through-line breaks (as it often does here) it is detrimental to the flow of the story.
Based, loosely, on the real-life exploits of PTA’s friend, Producer Gary Goetzman, LICORICE PIZZA stars Cooper Hoffman (son of Phillip Seymour Hoffman) as Gary Valentine and Alana Haim (of the Sister Act Musical Group HAIM) as Alana as they have an on-again/off-again friendship that SHOULD BE a romance, but isn’t (kind of like WHEN HARRY MET SALLY). They circumnavigate circa 1973 Los Angeles running into fictionalized portrayals of famous people like Producer Jon Peters (Bradley Cooper) and Film Actor Jack Holden (Sean Penn) an amalgamation of William Holden and Steve McQueen.
The central performances of Hoffman and Haim are competent enough, but never rises to anything more than that, which pulls this film down for one or the other of them is in every scene . The various actors doing extended cameos (like Cooper and Penn) seem to be having fun chewing up the scenery, but they are acting in a completely different style of film than Hoffman and Haim are and our 2 leads don’t stand a chance of standing out compared to these over-the-top performances.
Blame for all of this needs to be laid on Anderson (Oscar Nominated for his Direction in this film). He tried to give us a “slice of life” nostalgia piece like AMERICAN GRAFFITI or ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD, but he just doesn’t pull it off.
An Oscar Nominee for Best Picture, LICORICE PIZZA seems to be riding the wave of nostalgia both for the times depicted - and the artist who put this film on the screen - but it just isn’t that good of a film.
Letter Grade B- (for Cooper’s and Penn’s scenes in this)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Independence Day: Resurgence (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Why Will Smith is a wise, wise man.
I’m catching up on a few of the big films I missed during 2016. But Roland Emmerich has a lot to answer for with this one. Twenty years after Independence Day smashed the summer box office of 1996, the aliens are back: bigger and badder than ever. Steven Hiller (Will Smith) is no longer on the scene but, to give Emmerich a little credit, he has gathered an impressive array of the original stars to return led by Hiller’s wife Jasmine (Vivica Fox), President Whitmore (Bill Pullman), Dr Okun (Brent Spiner), David Levinson (Jeff Goldblum) and his dad (Judd Hirsch). The great Robert Loggia even turns up, who played the original General Grey, looking like he is about to expire (which unfortunately he did late last year, and the film is in memorial to him). All of them have weathered over the years apart from Judd Hirsch who must have a picture in his attic.
Playing the new generation (Hiller’s young son Dylan and the president’s daughter Patricia) are Jessie Usher and the comely Maika Monroe respectively, the latter having the pout of a young Jessica Alba and showing promise. Rounding off the young ‘uns, and playing an enormously irritating hunk/hero and his sidekick buddy are Jake (Liam Hemsworth – yes, younger brother of Chris) and Floyd (Nicolas Wright). And with the obvious needs of summer blockbusters to appeal to the ravenous Chinese market there is also Shanghai-born Angelababy as a young hotshot pilot and Chin Han as her uncle, moonbase commander Commander Jiang.
It’s hard to know where to start with criticism of this film. It’s like you’ve caught someone desecrating the grave of a dearly departed relative. The plot is ludicrous…. Uh oh…here comes another One Mann’s Movies Showcase Theatre….
The scene: onboard the alien craft high above central Asia
DRONE K’FAALL: “The use of the anti-gravity weapon worked a treat your Majesty. We have ripped up Shanghai and dumped in from a great height on London! Take that Queenie! All hail our weapons superiority! I take it we should just ‘rinse and repeat’ around the world to wipe them all out? ”
QUEEN ALIEN BEE: “No K’Fall. Let’s land in the Atlantic and then go fight them one-on-one with our little ships in the desert near Area 51.”
DRONE K’FALL: “B-b-b-but your Majesty, with our gravity weapon we could eliminate all threat, drill out the earth’s core and find what we came here for in perfect safety!”.
QUEEN ALIEN BEE: “No… that’s just what they’ll be expecting us to do…”
I thought the Oscar for the dumbest aliens of the year was a shoe-in for the ones who chose a similar tactic in “The 5th Wave” – but no… we have another contender for the crown. This ridiculous London-based CGI sequence – a virtual re-shoot of the ridiculous CGI sequence in Emmerich’s “2012” where John Cusack is fleeing by plane a collapsing Los Angeles – is mitigated only by Goldblum’s witty comment about them “Always going for the landmarks” – the best line in the film.
Elsewhere, the story and screenplay – by an army of writers (never a good sign) – is risible and an insult to intelligence, alien or otherwise. The ludicrous plot points go on and on…
Why on earth is the single landed alien craft from 1996 owned by an African warlord? If mankind have ‘benefited’ so much from the alien technology that must surely have been through the UN-dismantling of that ship?
There seems to be no logical connection between the “visions” (stolen from “Close Encounters”) and the alien craft. The visions might have well have been of the alien’s last shopping list (“six cans of Kraag beans; one bottle of Vollufi ale; … “);
The alien craft is big enough to span the WHOLE Atlantic when it lands, but – who would believe it? – comes to a stop with its edge in Washington JUST ENOUGH to dip the White House flag to a jaunty angle. #cringe;
The alien ship – apparently open to the elements – allows our heroic hunks to wander around without spacesuits;
Breathless… or not. Jessie T Usher and Liam Hemsworth (foreground) not dying of asphyxiation or cold.
At one point it looked like our curvaceous heroine was going to defeat the alien queen in good ol’ Wild West fashion armed only with a handgun (but no, my head could come out of my hands again);
And don’t even get me started on the opening “excitement” about propping up a collapsing supergun on the moon with a spaceship. Gerry Anderson would be spinning in his grave.
The dialogue is little better. The original “Independence Day” was probably most famous for two scenes: the impressive destruction of the White House and Bill Paxton’s ludicrously corny “We will not go quietly into the night” speech. Here trying to go one better we have not just one version of this but two with William Fichner’s General Adams chipping one in from the rough before Paxton delivers an impromptu hanger speech that is toe-curlingly excruciating.
Much of the acting is of the “I really don’t want to be here but it’s good for the pension” variety with Paxton and Goldblum going through the motions and Charlotte Gainsborough being horribly miscast as a French anthropologist running around the world on the trail of Pokemon Go characters… or symbols… or something. Only Brent Spiner and Judd Hirsch really get into their stride with likeably over-the-top performances.
Goldblum and Charlotte Gainsborough. A less likely historic romantic attachment its difficult to imagine.
If this was a standalone story it might scrape a double-Fad… but as it so horrendously sullies a classic movie experience it incurs my cinematic wrath. It might have made Roland Emmer-richer (sic)…. but my recommendation would be to get a big bag of popcorn, the original 1996 movie on DVD and enjoy. Avoid, avoid, avoid.
Playing the new generation (Hiller’s young son Dylan and the president’s daughter Patricia) are Jessie Usher and the comely Maika Monroe respectively, the latter having the pout of a young Jessica Alba and showing promise. Rounding off the young ‘uns, and playing an enormously irritating hunk/hero and his sidekick buddy are Jake (Liam Hemsworth – yes, younger brother of Chris) and Floyd (Nicolas Wright). And with the obvious needs of summer blockbusters to appeal to the ravenous Chinese market there is also Shanghai-born Angelababy as a young hotshot pilot and Chin Han as her uncle, moonbase commander Commander Jiang.
It’s hard to know where to start with criticism of this film. It’s like you’ve caught someone desecrating the grave of a dearly departed relative. The plot is ludicrous…. Uh oh…here comes another One Mann’s Movies Showcase Theatre….
The scene: onboard the alien craft high above central Asia
DRONE K’FAALL: “The use of the anti-gravity weapon worked a treat your Majesty. We have ripped up Shanghai and dumped in from a great height on London! Take that Queenie! All hail our weapons superiority! I take it we should just ‘rinse and repeat’ around the world to wipe them all out? ”
QUEEN ALIEN BEE: “No K’Fall. Let’s land in the Atlantic and then go fight them one-on-one with our little ships in the desert near Area 51.”
DRONE K’FALL: “B-b-b-but your Majesty, with our gravity weapon we could eliminate all threat, drill out the earth’s core and find what we came here for in perfect safety!”.
QUEEN ALIEN BEE: “No… that’s just what they’ll be expecting us to do…”
I thought the Oscar for the dumbest aliens of the year was a shoe-in for the ones who chose a similar tactic in “The 5th Wave” – but no… we have another contender for the crown. This ridiculous London-based CGI sequence – a virtual re-shoot of the ridiculous CGI sequence in Emmerich’s “2012” where John Cusack is fleeing by plane a collapsing Los Angeles – is mitigated only by Goldblum’s witty comment about them “Always going for the landmarks” – the best line in the film.
Elsewhere, the story and screenplay – by an army of writers (never a good sign) – is risible and an insult to intelligence, alien or otherwise. The ludicrous plot points go on and on…
Why on earth is the single landed alien craft from 1996 owned by an African warlord? If mankind have ‘benefited’ so much from the alien technology that must surely have been through the UN-dismantling of that ship?
There seems to be no logical connection between the “visions” (stolen from “Close Encounters”) and the alien craft. The visions might have well have been of the alien’s last shopping list (“six cans of Kraag beans; one bottle of Vollufi ale; … “);
The alien craft is big enough to span the WHOLE Atlantic when it lands, but – who would believe it? – comes to a stop with its edge in Washington JUST ENOUGH to dip the White House flag to a jaunty angle. #cringe;
The alien ship – apparently open to the elements – allows our heroic hunks to wander around without spacesuits;
Breathless… or not. Jessie T Usher and Liam Hemsworth (foreground) not dying of asphyxiation or cold.
At one point it looked like our curvaceous heroine was going to defeat the alien queen in good ol’ Wild West fashion armed only with a handgun (but no, my head could come out of my hands again);
And don’t even get me started on the opening “excitement” about propping up a collapsing supergun on the moon with a spaceship. Gerry Anderson would be spinning in his grave.
The dialogue is little better. The original “Independence Day” was probably most famous for two scenes: the impressive destruction of the White House and Bill Paxton’s ludicrously corny “We will not go quietly into the night” speech. Here trying to go one better we have not just one version of this but two with William Fichner’s General Adams chipping one in from the rough before Paxton delivers an impromptu hanger speech that is toe-curlingly excruciating.
Much of the acting is of the “I really don’t want to be here but it’s good for the pension” variety with Paxton and Goldblum going through the motions and Charlotte Gainsborough being horribly miscast as a French anthropologist running around the world on the trail of Pokemon Go characters… or symbols… or something. Only Brent Spiner and Judd Hirsch really get into their stride with likeably over-the-top performances.
Goldblum and Charlotte Gainsborough. A less likely historic romantic attachment its difficult to imagine.
If this was a standalone story it might scrape a double-Fad… but as it so horrendously sullies a classic movie experience it incurs my cinematic wrath. It might have made Roland Emmer-richer (sic)…. but my recommendation would be to get a big bag of popcorn, the original 1996 movie on DVD and enjoy. Avoid, avoid, avoid.