Search
Search results
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Batman: Detective Comics, Volume 5: A Lonely Place of Living in Books
Nov 30, 2020
Alright, alright, alright! (whoa, who let Matthew McConaughey in here?!?) I am coming to the near ending of James Tynion IV's run on "Rebirth" DETECTIVE COMICS. After this, one more volume to go: VOL. VI: THE FALL OF THE BATMEN. But, now I am getting ahead of myself, eh? Let's refocus back on this volume...
The ride thus far has been quite good! Tynion's treatment of Batman gives us a more faceted aspect of the Dark Knight. Yes, there is still the "Dark" to his "Knight", but there is also a bit of humanity, like the way he is in regard to Tim Drake, as well as Stephanie Brown/Spoiler. It reminds of what I liked most about the character as I was growing up in the 80s and 90s, something that appears to have been forgotten as Tom King continues to present a Batman that really was not needed! I look forward to him taking over from King on the BATMAN main book!
Spoiler, unfortunately, was still kinda mopey and angst-y in this volume as well. I dunno. When she came on board as the fourth Robin and then became the fourth Batgirl, I passed on it. It really did not have any attraction for me. However, in the first three volumes of "Rebirth" DETECTIVE COMICS, before Tim was grabbed by Mr. Oz (or was it Dr. Oz? lol), she was quite likeable, even kinda fun. After the whole "Tim Incident", the suck-itude was strong and hard! Hopefully, she will be more herself in Tynion's final volume of 'TEC!
The story was quite good, as it dealt with Tim Drake, and his role in the DCU since Dr. Manhattan made those missing 10 years go bye-bye. At points, it felt very much like a hackneyed plot element, but it still was not that bad. Not great, mind you, unlike the previous volumes, but not the worse treatment (that goes to King) of the Batman fam!
The other element that left this off my "Favorites" shelf, as well as only as high as 3 Stars, was the art from Eddy Barrows. He had some really great backgrounds and figure shots, but his faces? Um, no. Several times it looked like Tim was grinning when he should not have. Also, there were some other "that's not right" facial moments for much of the other supporting characters. I think he is a good artist, but I think whoever was editing that run should have been more aware of that!
Now, Alvaro Martinez? Perfect! His style was perfectly suited to Gotham City and the world of Batman. I would have loved him for the whole volume instead of the little bit he had. Hmm.. Maybe Tynion IV can bring him along for his upcoming run on BATMAN? #hopeful
So, yeah, I <i>liked</i> "A Lonely Of Living", but I didn't <i>love</i> it, dig? There was some good stuff, but overall, I would likely not want to re-visit it at a later date. Ah well, on to FALL OF THE BATMEN..
The ride thus far has been quite good! Tynion's treatment of Batman gives us a more faceted aspect of the Dark Knight. Yes, there is still the "Dark" to his "Knight", but there is also a bit of humanity, like the way he is in regard to Tim Drake, as well as Stephanie Brown/Spoiler. It reminds of what I liked most about the character as I was growing up in the 80s and 90s, something that appears to have been forgotten as Tom King continues to present a Batman that really was not needed! I look forward to him taking over from King on the BATMAN main book!
Spoiler, unfortunately, was still kinda mopey and angst-y in this volume as well. I dunno. When she came on board as the fourth Robin and then became the fourth Batgirl, I passed on it. It really did not have any attraction for me. However, in the first three volumes of "Rebirth" DETECTIVE COMICS, before Tim was grabbed by Mr. Oz (or was it Dr. Oz? lol), she was quite likeable, even kinda fun. After the whole "Tim Incident", the suck-itude was strong and hard! Hopefully, she will be more herself in Tynion's final volume of 'TEC!
The story was quite good, as it dealt with Tim Drake, and his role in the DCU since Dr. Manhattan made those missing 10 years go bye-bye. At points, it felt very much like a hackneyed plot element, but it still was not that bad. Not great, mind you, unlike the previous volumes, but not the worse treatment (that goes to King) of the Batman fam!
The other element that left this off my "Favorites" shelf, as well as only as high as 3 Stars, was the art from Eddy Barrows. He had some really great backgrounds and figure shots, but his faces? Um, no. Several times it looked like Tim was grinning when he should not have. Also, there were some other "that's not right" facial moments for much of the other supporting characters. I think he is a good artist, but I think whoever was editing that run should have been more aware of that!
Now, Alvaro Martinez? Perfect! His style was perfectly suited to Gotham City and the world of Batman. I would have loved him for the whole volume instead of the little bit he had. Hmm.. Maybe Tynion IV can bring him along for his upcoming run on BATMAN? #hopeful
So, yeah, I <i>liked</i> "A Lonely Of Living", but I didn't <i>love</i> it, dig? There was some good stuff, but overall, I would likely not want to re-visit it at a later date. Ah well, on to FALL OF THE BATMEN..
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Son of Frankenstein (1939) in Movies
Oct 9, 2020
Boris Karloff (3 more)
Bela Lugosi
Basil Rathbone
Lionel Atwill
The Monster's Alive Once More
Son of Frankenstein- is a great continuation of the frankenstein franchise. Boris Karloff os back as the monster but this would be the last time he would play the monster in the universal monster universe. Its sad cause when you think of frankenstein, you think of Boris.
The plot: Baron Wolf von Frankenstein (Basil Rathbone) is determined to prove the legitimacy of his father's scientific work, thus rescuing the family name from disgrace. With the help of Ygor (Bela Lugosi), a grave robber, Wolf successfully reanimates the monster (Boris Karloff) his father originally brought back from the dead. But when several villagers are killed mysteriously, Wolf must find the culprit in order to vindicate his creation, or face the possibility that he may be responsible.
Universal's declining horror output was revitalized with the enormously successful Son of Frankenstein, in which the studio cast both stars.
After the ousting of the Laemmles from Universal and the British embargo on American horror films in 1936, Karloff and Lugosi found themselves in a career slump. For two years, horror films were out of favor at Universal Studios. On April 5, 1938, a nearly bankrupt theater in Los Angeles staged a desperate stunt by showing Frankenstein, Dracula and King Kong as a triple feature. The impressive box office results led to similarly successful revivals nationwide. Universal soon decided to make a big-budget Frankenstein sequel.
Son of Frankenstein marks changes in the Monster's character from Bride of Frankenstein. The Monster is duller and no longer speaks, explained by being injured by a lightning strike. The monster also wore a giant fur vest, not seen in the first two Frankenstein films, perhaps to add color to his appearance when the film was planned to be shot in color. He is fond of Ygor and obeys his orders. The Monster shows humanity in three scenes: first when he is disturbed by his image in a mirror, especially when compared to the Baron. Next, when he discovers Ygor's body, letting out a powerful scream, and later when he contemplates killing Peter but changes his mind. While the first two films were clearly set in the 1900s, this film appears to take place in the 1930s, judging by the appearance of a modern automobile.
Peter Lorre was originally cast as Baron Wolf von Frankenstein, but he had to leave the production when he became ill. Replacing Lorre was Basil Rathbone, who had scored a major triumph as Sir Guy of Gisbourne in The Adventures of Robin Hood, released the previous year.
According to the documentary Universal Horror (1998), the film was intended to be shot in color and some Technicolor test footage was filmed, but for artistic or budgetary reasons the plan was abandoned. No color test footage is known to survive, but a clip from a Kodachrome color home movie filmed at the studio and showing Boris Karloff in the green monster makeup, clowning around with makeup artist Jack Pierce, is included in the same documentary.
Its a excellent universal monster film.
The plot: Baron Wolf von Frankenstein (Basil Rathbone) is determined to prove the legitimacy of his father's scientific work, thus rescuing the family name from disgrace. With the help of Ygor (Bela Lugosi), a grave robber, Wolf successfully reanimates the monster (Boris Karloff) his father originally brought back from the dead. But when several villagers are killed mysteriously, Wolf must find the culprit in order to vindicate his creation, or face the possibility that he may be responsible.
Universal's declining horror output was revitalized with the enormously successful Son of Frankenstein, in which the studio cast both stars.
After the ousting of the Laemmles from Universal and the British embargo on American horror films in 1936, Karloff and Lugosi found themselves in a career slump. For two years, horror films were out of favor at Universal Studios. On April 5, 1938, a nearly bankrupt theater in Los Angeles staged a desperate stunt by showing Frankenstein, Dracula and King Kong as a triple feature. The impressive box office results led to similarly successful revivals nationwide. Universal soon decided to make a big-budget Frankenstein sequel.
Son of Frankenstein marks changes in the Monster's character from Bride of Frankenstein. The Monster is duller and no longer speaks, explained by being injured by a lightning strike. The monster also wore a giant fur vest, not seen in the first two Frankenstein films, perhaps to add color to his appearance when the film was planned to be shot in color. He is fond of Ygor and obeys his orders. The Monster shows humanity in three scenes: first when he is disturbed by his image in a mirror, especially when compared to the Baron. Next, when he discovers Ygor's body, letting out a powerful scream, and later when he contemplates killing Peter but changes his mind. While the first two films were clearly set in the 1900s, this film appears to take place in the 1930s, judging by the appearance of a modern automobile.
Peter Lorre was originally cast as Baron Wolf von Frankenstein, but he had to leave the production when he became ill. Replacing Lorre was Basil Rathbone, who had scored a major triumph as Sir Guy of Gisbourne in The Adventures of Robin Hood, released the previous year.
According to the documentary Universal Horror (1998), the film was intended to be shot in color and some Technicolor test footage was filmed, but for artistic or budgetary reasons the plan was abandoned. No color test footage is known to survive, but a clip from a Kodachrome color home movie filmed at the studio and showing Boris Karloff in the green monster makeup, clowning around with makeup artist Jack Pierce, is included in the same documentary.
Its a excellent universal monster film.
Super-violent fighting "action"
I've never seen the original Baki the Grappler series. But on a recommendation from a friend, I decided to watch this one, which is apparently a sequel to the other. Although I feel you don't need to have watched the original, I feel there were a few parts in this one that would have had more meaning if I had seen the original.
Anyway, the story is about 17 year old Baki Hanma. A martial artist, who won an underground tournament, who is now targeted by 5 death-row inmates. Other members of the underground tournament take Baki's side to fight against them. That's pretty much it.
Each character seems to have a unique fighting style or ability & each character has their own special look. But no matter the look, these characters are ugly. I mean real ugly. They may be the most grotesque characters I've ever seen on film. Almost every one has a ridiculously unrealistic over-muscular body. It's as if a 10 year old drew a bodybuilder. Everyone's hands look like balloons, with marbles as knuckles. Everyone's feet look like a rock with tiny grapes as toes. Hideous faces & disturbing eyes. Even Baki, who is supposed to be good looking, looks overly glam. Again, like a 10 year old's drawing. As for the animation, it's not very good. Most of the show is two characters facing each other & talking crap to each other before finally, someone punches or kicks & then it's just a still shot of them hitting the other with a white streak, faking movement. In the cases where we actually see them moving, the animation jarringly switches to the horrible hand-drawn CGI animation that I can't stand.
As I mentioned, each character has their own style of fighting. Whether it's karate or judo or hidden weapons or weapons hidden inside the body, etc... So, there's lots of variety. The show is for mature audiences due to the gore (lots of dismemberment, eye popping, etc...) & nudity. So, no kids, ok?
But here's the main problem I have. I don't care about the characters. I don't care about Baki. In fact, if you pay attention, he's not in most of the series. And when he is, most of the time he doesn't do anything. This show also has one of the most unintentionally hilarious scenes I've ever seen & that his sex scene. He's never had sex before & we get to hear his thoughts. It's almost like the writer never had sex either. I was laughing out loud.
So, why did I watch? Well, so I had a new anime to talk about with my friend. And although I said I don't care about the characters, I still want to see what happens. I would say the show is geared towards men, as there is only one female character & she's played like a stereo-typical damsel in distress. I have 3 episodes left to watch & no sign of a female fighter. I say give it a shot if you want some mindless ass-kicking fluff.
Anyway, the story is about 17 year old Baki Hanma. A martial artist, who won an underground tournament, who is now targeted by 5 death-row inmates. Other members of the underground tournament take Baki's side to fight against them. That's pretty much it.
Each character seems to have a unique fighting style or ability & each character has their own special look. But no matter the look, these characters are ugly. I mean real ugly. They may be the most grotesque characters I've ever seen on film. Almost every one has a ridiculously unrealistic over-muscular body. It's as if a 10 year old drew a bodybuilder. Everyone's hands look like balloons, with marbles as knuckles. Everyone's feet look like a rock with tiny grapes as toes. Hideous faces & disturbing eyes. Even Baki, who is supposed to be good looking, looks overly glam. Again, like a 10 year old's drawing. As for the animation, it's not very good. Most of the show is two characters facing each other & talking crap to each other before finally, someone punches or kicks & then it's just a still shot of them hitting the other with a white streak, faking movement. In the cases where we actually see them moving, the animation jarringly switches to the horrible hand-drawn CGI animation that I can't stand.
As I mentioned, each character has their own style of fighting. Whether it's karate or judo or hidden weapons or weapons hidden inside the body, etc... So, there's lots of variety. The show is for mature audiences due to the gore (lots of dismemberment, eye popping, etc...) & nudity. So, no kids, ok?
But here's the main problem I have. I don't care about the characters. I don't care about Baki. In fact, if you pay attention, he's not in most of the series. And when he is, most of the time he doesn't do anything. This show also has one of the most unintentionally hilarious scenes I've ever seen & that his sex scene. He's never had sex before & we get to hear his thoughts. It's almost like the writer never had sex either. I was laughing out loud.
So, why did I watch? Well, so I had a new anime to talk about with my friend. And although I said I don't care about the characters, I still want to see what happens. I would say the show is geared towards men, as there is only one female character & she's played like a stereo-typical damsel in distress. I have 3 episodes left to watch & no sign of a female fighter. I say give it a shot if you want some mindless ass-kicking fluff.
The Halloween Oracle
Lifestyle and Reference
App
Harness the eerie power of Halloween every night of year with this stunning, accurate Oracle deck. ...
Foliobook Photo Portfolio
Photo & Video and Productivity
App
Foliobook is the clean and minimal ipad portfolio app for photographers, agents, designers, models,...
ALIVE Movie Maker & Music Video Editor for iMovie
Photo & Video and Social Networking
App
ALIVE is the best way to create beautiful videos. Transform everyday moments into unique works of...
The Nantucket Beachfront Inn (Sconset Beach #1)
Book
She's 54, broken-hearted, and starting over.... High-powered New York attorney Ava Flynn finds...
Contemporary Women's Fiction
Ande Thomas (69 KP) rated The Time Traveler's Wife in Books
May 30, 2019
I've been thinking a lot about what I would write about <i>The Time Traveler's Wife,</i> partly because it seems one usually falls into one of two camps: Love it, hate it. It turns out, I belong to the latter. I won't bother with the sci-fi elements, the could he/couldn't he, the exploration of time travel as a plot device - I'm always willing to engage with a story as long as it follows it's own rules. My problems run deeper.
Spoilers abound.
<spoiler>
First, I'd be remiss not to at least acknowledge the creepy factor of a 40 year old naked man befriending a 6 year old girl. It's been discussed ad nauseum, but I've got to put my two cents in.
The whole experience reeks of grooming. Henry shows up, naked, in a young girl's life and (although true) casually explains that he's a <i>time traveler</i>. Her imagination is hooked. Her very own secret Magic Man. Over the following years, their friendship blossoms, and Henry refuses to tell her anything about the future. He is friendly, charming even, and always respectful. But he remains an enigma. Clare is pulled in by the mystery of the Magic Man. All she knows are the dates of his future arrivals. Until one day he begins to break his rule and tell her that they will be together. They'll get married and be in love and have a life. What changed? Why is he suddenly willing to tell her snippets of her future life? Puberty. She admits her desire to be with him and he basically says "keep waiting, it'll happen."
From that moment, her life has been decided - by Henry, and for Henry. Clare spends the entirety of her teenage existence (and beyond) waiting on Henry. The whole of her character arc is basically one big middle finger to the Bechdel test. Henry leads her by a leash with clues and vague promises of the future. We'll be together when you're older (we're destined). We'll have sex on your 18th birthday (wait for me). We'll meet in Chicago (move to Chicago). Even after his dying breath, he subtly slides direction her way. "I hope you move on, but by the way, I'll drop by when you're EIGHTY. But by all means...move on." Is it coincidence that Henry's time traveling mimics an emotionally abusive relationship? Clare tells us, "Henry is an artist of another sort, a disappearing artist. Our life together in this too-small apartment is punctuated by Henry’s small absences. Sometimes he disappears unobtrusively . . . Sometimes it’s frightening." Sure, you say, but he can't help it. He wants to be there for her. <i>It's just the way he is.</i> It's not even hinted at. Multiple people tell Clare <b>to her face</b> that Henry is bad news. But she won't hear it, because he spent her entire childhood molding her into his wife.
The author doesn't hide the allusion to Homer. Rather, she beats us over the head with it. And sure, it makes sense; Clare is the patiently waiting wife, Henry the distant traveler. Even Alba takes up her role as Telemachus, going on her own journeys in search of her father. But do we need both main characters referring to Henry by name, as Odysseus? We get it, girl. You want to write your own romantic Odyssey. Ease up.
Oh, and by the way - Clare's quote above? That's one of her first comments on married life. Her first thoughts after the wedding are "Why is my husband always gone? Why am I always afraid for him?" Henry's first thoughts? "How can Clare listen to Cheap Trick?" Let me remind you that this is the guy who's willing to rattle off a comprehensive list of early punk before jumping up to join in singing a Prince song, but he's upset that his wife listens to The Eagles instead of some obscure as hell French punk band. Also, this man who is thrilled to share musical tastes with a young teen with a mohawk then laments that the kid can't find his own music and has to take his? He preaches the meaning of punk before privately questioning why those kids want to be punk? Here's a guy who's entire life was shaped by music - both of his parents made livings playing music written before they were even born, yet he can't comprehend why two preteens could (or should) like The Clash, or why Clare would like The Beatles. <i>Stay in your own time,</i> he is essentially saying, <i>leave the time traveling to me.</i>
The guy doesn't even realize the pain he causes. Ingrid asks him "Why were you so mean to me?" "Was I," he says, "I didn't want to be." I know, I know. Everyone around her didn't want him to see her or speak to her. But need I remind you - dude time travels and frequently gives himself tips from the future. "Hey pal, take it easy on Ingrid," or "Bro, Ingrid is really shaken up, don't listen to her family or doctor, she needs some closure." But of course, nothing can really change, everything is the way it is.
This is all before I even begin to mention how much Niffenegger LOVES to name-drop. Of course there's the aforementioned punk band name-vomit, mentions of Henry's parents' work can't go by without naming a specific piece, despite adding nothing to the story or our understanding of the characters, there are two separate references to Claude Levi-Strauss (why?), and various other casual mentions of figures that seem to serve no purpose other than to prove that Henry is smart, and knows smart people things.
</spoiler>
I wanted to like this book more, I thought it had a fascinating premise and an interesting perspective. Obviously, I'm not a regular consumer of romance, and I realize that the problems I have with this book are problems shared by a large portion of the genre. But I am positive that we can have a love story that isn't mired by (at best) morally ambiguous relationships. I understand it was a different world when it was published, and that's not directly anyone's fault. Questions of consent and power and respect have been thrust into the spotlight in the short years since this book was published, but that's the lens with which I have to peer through. Stop glorifying these vapid, and frankly, abusive relationships as the paragon of romance. We're better than this. We need to be.
Spoilers abound.
<spoiler>
First, I'd be remiss not to at least acknowledge the creepy factor of a 40 year old naked man befriending a 6 year old girl. It's been discussed ad nauseum, but I've got to put my two cents in.
The whole experience reeks of grooming. Henry shows up, naked, in a young girl's life and (although true) casually explains that he's a <i>time traveler</i>. Her imagination is hooked. Her very own secret Magic Man. Over the following years, their friendship blossoms, and Henry refuses to tell her anything about the future. He is friendly, charming even, and always respectful. But he remains an enigma. Clare is pulled in by the mystery of the Magic Man. All she knows are the dates of his future arrivals. Until one day he begins to break his rule and tell her that they will be together. They'll get married and be in love and have a life. What changed? Why is he suddenly willing to tell her snippets of her future life? Puberty. She admits her desire to be with him and he basically says "keep waiting, it'll happen."
From that moment, her life has been decided - by Henry, and for Henry. Clare spends the entirety of her teenage existence (and beyond) waiting on Henry. The whole of her character arc is basically one big middle finger to the Bechdel test. Henry leads her by a leash with clues and vague promises of the future. We'll be together when you're older (we're destined). We'll have sex on your 18th birthday (wait for me). We'll meet in Chicago (move to Chicago). Even after his dying breath, he subtly slides direction her way. "I hope you move on, but by the way, I'll drop by when you're EIGHTY. But by all means...move on." Is it coincidence that Henry's time traveling mimics an emotionally abusive relationship? Clare tells us, "Henry is an artist of another sort, a disappearing artist. Our life together in this too-small apartment is punctuated by Henry’s small absences. Sometimes he disappears unobtrusively . . . Sometimes it’s frightening." Sure, you say, but he can't help it. He wants to be there for her. <i>It's just the way he is.</i> It's not even hinted at. Multiple people tell Clare <b>to her face</b> that Henry is bad news. But she won't hear it, because he spent her entire childhood molding her into his wife.
The author doesn't hide the allusion to Homer. Rather, she beats us over the head with it. And sure, it makes sense; Clare is the patiently waiting wife, Henry the distant traveler. Even Alba takes up her role as Telemachus, going on her own journeys in search of her father. But do we need both main characters referring to Henry by name, as Odysseus? We get it, girl. You want to write your own romantic Odyssey. Ease up.
Oh, and by the way - Clare's quote above? That's one of her first comments on married life. Her first thoughts after the wedding are "Why is my husband always gone? Why am I always afraid for him?" Henry's first thoughts? "How can Clare listen to Cheap Trick?" Let me remind you that this is the guy who's willing to rattle off a comprehensive list of early punk before jumping up to join in singing a Prince song, but he's upset that his wife listens to The Eagles instead of some obscure as hell French punk band. Also, this man who is thrilled to share musical tastes with a young teen with a mohawk then laments that the kid can't find his own music and has to take his? He preaches the meaning of punk before privately questioning why those kids want to be punk? Here's a guy who's entire life was shaped by music - both of his parents made livings playing music written before they were even born, yet he can't comprehend why two preteens could (or should) like The Clash, or why Clare would like The Beatles. <i>Stay in your own time,</i> he is essentially saying, <i>leave the time traveling to me.</i>
The guy doesn't even realize the pain he causes. Ingrid asks him "Why were you so mean to me?" "Was I," he says, "I didn't want to be." I know, I know. Everyone around her didn't want him to see her or speak to her. But need I remind you - dude time travels and frequently gives himself tips from the future. "Hey pal, take it easy on Ingrid," or "Bro, Ingrid is really shaken up, don't listen to her family or doctor, she needs some closure." But of course, nothing can really change, everything is the way it is.
This is all before I even begin to mention how much Niffenegger LOVES to name-drop. Of course there's the aforementioned punk band name-vomit, mentions of Henry's parents' work can't go by without naming a specific piece, despite adding nothing to the story or our understanding of the characters, there are two separate references to Claude Levi-Strauss (why?), and various other casual mentions of figures that seem to serve no purpose other than to prove that Henry is smart, and knows smart people things.
</spoiler>
I wanted to like this book more, I thought it had a fascinating premise and an interesting perspective. Obviously, I'm not a regular consumer of romance, and I realize that the problems I have with this book are problems shared by a large portion of the genre. But I am positive that we can have a love story that isn't mired by (at best) morally ambiguous relationships. I understand it was a different world when it was published, and that's not directly anyone's fault. Questions of consent and power and respect have been thrust into the spotlight in the short years since this book was published, but that's the lens with which I have to peer through. Stop glorifying these vapid, and frankly, abusive relationships as the paragon of romance. We're better than this. We need to be.