Search
Search results
IM
Islamic Macroeconomics: A Model for Efficient Government, Stability and Full Employment
Book
The economic model in many developed and developing countries is characterized by a 'Big Government'...
Professional Services Marketing: How the Best Firms Build Premier Brands, Thriving Lead Generation Engines, and Cultures of Business Development Success
Mike Schultz, John E. Doerr and Lee Frederikson
Book
A proven approach to revenue-generating marketing and client development Professional Services...
The Diabetes Comfort Food Diet
Book
200 delicious dishes that will help you to manage your weight and balance your blood sugar....
Critical Trauma Studies: Understanding Violence, Conflict and Memory in Everyday Life
Monica J. Casper and Eric Wertheimer
Book
Trauma is a universal human experience. While each person responds differently to trauma, its...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Motherless Brooklyn (2019) in Movies
Jan 15, 2021
A little too slow and self-indulgent for my tastes
There is no denying that Edward Norton is a talented performer. Ever since he burst onto the scene with his Oscar nominated performance in PRIMAL FEAR, he has been a presence both on and off the screen as an Actor, Writer, Producer and Director.
With his latest effort, MOTHERLESS BROOKLYN (based on the base selling novel by Jonathan Lethem), Norton puts ALL of his skills to work as he Produced, Directed, Wrote and Starred in this Private Eye thriller from 2019.
If only Norton had handed at least 1 of those jobs over to someone else.
Norton stars as Lionel Essrog, a Private Eye with Tourette’s Syndrome, who’s investigation into the murder of a mentor of his exposes corruption, racism, greed and abuse of power in City Hall in New York City in the 1950’s.
As the star, Norton brings a nice edge to Lionel, who’s Tourette’s causes him to twitch and belt out words randomly, as well as gives him a photographic memory. While the twitching and random swearing are a bit over the top at times, the photographic memory helps Lionel solve the case (of course it does).
And that’s where I have issue with writer Norton - as he cannot resist the urge to showcase Actor Norton’s propensity to go over the top and puts in many, many “Tourette’s moments” as well as putting in long dialogue scenes that tries to show the audience how smart Lionel is.
Unfortunately, Director Norton indulges Writer Norton and Actor Norton so the film has a languid pace that just sits on Lionel’s actions and words. This is a 2 hour movie packed into a 2 1/2 hour run time. Now, to be fair to Director Norton, there are some absolutely gorgeous and interesting pictures put on the screen and the atmosphere (and characters) that are created are interesting (enough) to ALMOST forgive the self-indulgent ways of Writer/Actor/Director Norton.
As for the rest of the cast, Bruce Willis is…Bruce Willis as a Private Eye that works with Lionel and Willem DaFoe is at his “Willem DeFoe-iest” in portraying a critic of New York City Hall with a secret past. It’s as if Director Norton said to both of these 2 fine actors to just “do your thing” while he focused on the myriad of other jobs he had on this film.
Special notice needs to be made of the work of Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Femme Fatale Laura Rose (a part that Norton specifically added to the film - her character was not in the book - and wrote just for her). She is quite good in this role and her scenes with Norton crackle somewhat louder than the rest of the film.
And then there is Alec Baldwin as a corrupt, racist, politician who is looking out for only 1 person - himself. While Baldwin is very good in this 100% serious role, I couldn’t be help but be reminded of a certain comedic character he has played for the past few years on Saturday Night Live.
The music by Daniel Pemberton and the Cinematography by Dick Pope add greatly to the atmosphere of this film - and that is good - for when the story bogs down (and it bogs down A LOT), there usually is something interesting to look at or listen to.
Not a bad film, but it could have been a much better film if someone would have taken at least ONE of the jobs off of Norton (I would vote for Director) and tightened things up and tone down Norton’s tendency to “ham it up” on screen.
Letter Grade: B-
6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
With his latest effort, MOTHERLESS BROOKLYN (based on the base selling novel by Jonathan Lethem), Norton puts ALL of his skills to work as he Produced, Directed, Wrote and Starred in this Private Eye thriller from 2019.
If only Norton had handed at least 1 of those jobs over to someone else.
Norton stars as Lionel Essrog, a Private Eye with Tourette’s Syndrome, who’s investigation into the murder of a mentor of his exposes corruption, racism, greed and abuse of power in City Hall in New York City in the 1950’s.
As the star, Norton brings a nice edge to Lionel, who’s Tourette’s causes him to twitch and belt out words randomly, as well as gives him a photographic memory. While the twitching and random swearing are a bit over the top at times, the photographic memory helps Lionel solve the case (of course it does).
And that’s where I have issue with writer Norton - as he cannot resist the urge to showcase Actor Norton’s propensity to go over the top and puts in many, many “Tourette’s moments” as well as putting in long dialogue scenes that tries to show the audience how smart Lionel is.
Unfortunately, Director Norton indulges Writer Norton and Actor Norton so the film has a languid pace that just sits on Lionel’s actions and words. This is a 2 hour movie packed into a 2 1/2 hour run time. Now, to be fair to Director Norton, there are some absolutely gorgeous and interesting pictures put on the screen and the atmosphere (and characters) that are created are interesting (enough) to ALMOST forgive the self-indulgent ways of Writer/Actor/Director Norton.
As for the rest of the cast, Bruce Willis is…Bruce Willis as a Private Eye that works with Lionel and Willem DaFoe is at his “Willem DeFoe-iest” in portraying a critic of New York City Hall with a secret past. It’s as if Director Norton said to both of these 2 fine actors to just “do your thing” while he focused on the myriad of other jobs he had on this film.
Special notice needs to be made of the work of Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Femme Fatale Laura Rose (a part that Norton specifically added to the film - her character was not in the book - and wrote just for her). She is quite good in this role and her scenes with Norton crackle somewhat louder than the rest of the film.
And then there is Alec Baldwin as a corrupt, racist, politician who is looking out for only 1 person - himself. While Baldwin is very good in this 100% serious role, I couldn’t be help but be reminded of a certain comedic character he has played for the past few years on Saturday Night Live.
The music by Daniel Pemberton and the Cinematography by Dick Pope add greatly to the atmosphere of this film - and that is good - for when the story bogs down (and it bogs down A LOT), there usually is something interesting to look at or listen to.
Not a bad film, but it could have been a much better film if someone would have taken at least ONE of the jobs off of Norton (I would vote for Director) and tightened things up and tone down Norton’s tendency to “ham it up” on screen.
Letter Grade: B-
6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood: Play at Home with Daniel
Education and Games
App
Playing is learning as you explore bedtime, bathtime, doctor, and more at Daniel Tiger's house. ...
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated The Other Boleyn Girl in Books
Feb 15, 2019
Going into <b>The Other Boleyn Girl</b> I already knew that the historical details weren't very factual, but I had this laying around and needed something both light and set in the past, so I figured this would do nicely. The writing itself is perfectly fine, and mostly, I did enjoy the book. Although, for the first half, it seemed as if everyone only wore red and by the end I got so sick of hearing about Anne's "B" for Boleyn necklace I could scream.
Mary Boleyn, the narrator, is a strange character: sympathetic and of reasonable intelligence one minute, a moronic irritant the next. Personality-wise she went up and down and back and forth. First she was fine not being the King's favorite anymore and seeming to want to leave the court life for the country to be with her children, then she was jealous of a title Anne received, years after the affair between Mary and Henry was over. Possibly this was put in as part of the rivalry between the sisters, but it didn't contextually fit. Her development could have used more work and she didn't mature or change much throughout the whole book, especially between the years 1522 to 1533. I seriously got tired of everybody's patronizing and calling her a fool all the time. They should have just named the book, <b>The Foolish Boleyn Girl</b>. I find it hard to believe Mary was so ignorant the king would have continued to have her as mistress for four years, give or take. She had to offer something other than good looks and being great in the bedroom. Anne herself sure was a piece of work, and even though she was pretty much evil throughout the book, I did still feel sorry for her at the end. Jane Parker was a one-dimensional malicious harpy who wasn't given a reason why she was that way; she was just the resident baddy to the Boleyns. To me, it felt like defamation of character.
Politics and the separation of the Church of England from the Catholic Church were merely mentioned in passing as court life and its primary players took center stage. The whole incest plot, I could have done without. Now if it were the absolute truth then it'd be okay, but since it's highly debatable and based on hearsay, I found it unnecessary and gratuitous. Around the two-thirds mark, the pace let up and it became more sluggish and boring, and it wasn't until the last sixty pages that it recaptured my attention again.
As long as readers know going into this book that the history has been twisted around and invented for pure sensation, then it's fine as a fictional read, but take any "facts" with a grain of salt. While it was an okay read, I didn't love it, but it managed to divert my attention for a few days.
One last note dealing with the fourth question in the Q&A with Philippa Gregory in the back of the book:
<blockquote>How about Mary and Anne's brother, George? Did he really sleep with his sister so that she could give Henry a son?
<i>Nobody can know the answer to this one. Anne was accused of adultery with George at their trials and his wife gave evidence against them both. Most people think the trial was a show trial, but it is an interesting accusation. Anne had three miscarriages by the time of her trial, and she was not a woman to let something like sin or crime stand in her way--she was clearly guilty of one murder. I think if she had thought that Henry could not bear a son she was quite capable of finding someone to father a child on her. If she thought that, then George would have been the obvious choice.</i></blockquote>
Obvious? How in the world is that obvious? You cannot be serious, Ms. Gregory. Now I'm far from an expert in Tudor England, but I cannot imagine that being a common practice. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about this time could tell me if that ever happened, because it just boggles my mind that George would be the "<i>obvious choice</i>." Not to mention, who the hell did Anne supposedly kill? I hadn't heard that anywhere. Even my searches are coming up blank.
Mary Boleyn, the narrator, is a strange character: sympathetic and of reasonable intelligence one minute, a moronic irritant the next. Personality-wise she went up and down and back and forth. First she was fine not being the King's favorite anymore and seeming to want to leave the court life for the country to be with her children, then she was jealous of a title Anne received, years after the affair between Mary and Henry was over. Possibly this was put in as part of the rivalry between the sisters, but it didn't contextually fit. Her development could have used more work and she didn't mature or change much throughout the whole book, especially between the years 1522 to 1533. I seriously got tired of everybody's patronizing and calling her a fool all the time. They should have just named the book, <b>The Foolish Boleyn Girl</b>. I find it hard to believe Mary was so ignorant the king would have continued to have her as mistress for four years, give or take. She had to offer something other than good looks and being great in the bedroom. Anne herself sure was a piece of work, and even though she was pretty much evil throughout the book, I did still feel sorry for her at the end. Jane Parker was a one-dimensional malicious harpy who wasn't given a reason why she was that way; she was just the resident baddy to the Boleyns. To me, it felt like defamation of character.
Politics and the separation of the Church of England from the Catholic Church were merely mentioned in passing as court life and its primary players took center stage. The whole incest plot, I could have done without. Now if it were the absolute truth then it'd be okay, but since it's highly debatable and based on hearsay, I found it unnecessary and gratuitous. Around the two-thirds mark, the pace let up and it became more sluggish and boring, and it wasn't until the last sixty pages that it recaptured my attention again.
As long as readers know going into this book that the history has been twisted around and invented for pure sensation, then it's fine as a fictional read, but take any "facts" with a grain of salt. While it was an okay read, I didn't love it, but it managed to divert my attention for a few days.
One last note dealing with the fourth question in the Q&A with Philippa Gregory in the back of the book:
<blockquote>How about Mary and Anne's brother, George? Did he really sleep with his sister so that she could give Henry a son?
<i>Nobody can know the answer to this one. Anne was accused of adultery with George at their trials and his wife gave evidence against them both. Most people think the trial was a show trial, but it is an interesting accusation. Anne had three miscarriages by the time of her trial, and she was not a woman to let something like sin or crime stand in her way--she was clearly guilty of one murder. I think if she had thought that Henry could not bear a son she was quite capable of finding someone to father a child on her. If she thought that, then George would have been the obvious choice.</i></blockquote>
Obvious? How in the world is that obvious? You cannot be serious, Ms. Gregory. Now I'm far from an expert in Tudor England, but I cannot imagine that being a common practice. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about this time could tell me if that ever happened, because it just boggles my mind that George would be the "<i>obvious choice</i>." Not to mention, who the hell did Anne supposedly kill? I hadn't heard that anywhere. Even my searches are coming up blank.
Erika (17789 KP) rated The Green Knight (2020) in Movies
Aug 2, 2021
Green Knight, based upon the poem, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, does the poem justice. We join our relatively pure-hearted Sir Gawain (Dev Patel) on Christmas morning, as he wakes up in what appears to be a brothel. He rushes home to his Mother (Sarita Choudhury), to change for the Christmas Day feast with the aged King (Sean Harris). Mother is left behind as Gawain goes to the feast, and conjures the appearance of the Green Knight.
Gawain agrees to the Christmas game proposed by the Green Knight, so he can be knighted himself. The game is the same as the poem, a knight gives a blow to the Green Knight, and a year from that date, the knight will visit the Green Chapel so he can return the favor.
The year passes, and Gawain sets out on his quest. Mother gives him the gift of a green sash, that will protect him as he faces the journey and the Green Knight. He sets off on his trippy journey, encountering a scavenger (Barry Keoghan) along the way and is quickly delayed in his quest and left for dead, losing his green sash. After freeing himself, he sets out on his allegory-filled quest again, encountering St. Winifred (Erin Kellyman), giants, and is led by a fox to a castle near the Green Chapel.
The castle is where the film gets back on track with the poem. The Lord (Joel Egerton) shows kindness and hospitality, while his wife (Alicia Vikander), takes the role as temptress. Alicia Vikander plays both the Lady, and the prostitute that Gawain is in love with back home. It’s understandably confusing for Gawain. The same deal is struck between the Lord and Gawain, while the Lord is away on the hunt, he will give Gawain everything he catches, while Gawain promises to give the Lord anything he receives at the castle. Gawain does not end up keeping the agreement as he’s seduced by the Lady and gets the green sash back. He escapes the castle and goes to the Green Chapel to finish the Christmas game. The end was very interesting, would Gawain choose to be courageous and maintain his honor, accepting death? Or would he be a coward, running away to be knighted, then subsequently become King? The ending was scary good.
My first thought after the film ended was that we finally got a film that did an Arthurian legend justice. I happened to be really into Arthuriana, so this film was such a treat. Though, I am left with some questions. I’m not sure which sister Mother was supposed to be. Was Mother Morgaine or Morgause? I assume it was Morgause, but Mother was a little more witchy, so maybe Morgaine? I also don’t know if in the film, the Green Knight was the Lord. The characters were played by two different actors, but the Lord is definitely supposed to be the Green Knight.
Another thing I did like is that I don’t believe they ever called the King by his name, Arthur. This was a smart move, as the story was centralized on Sir Gawain, and not about Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table.
The one sore thumb for me was Alicia Vikander. Her accent when she was the prostitute, Essel, was horrid. I also think that character wasn’t really needed at all because she was just annoying. The whole brothel situation itself was kind of lame because Gawain was supposed to be pure and innocent. The innocence being lost at the Castle was a major part of the poem.
Dev Patel was excellent as Gawain; I was entranced by him, and he kept my attention the entire film. I know there were grumblings about his casting, but seriously, this is a fantasy story. It also is not impossible for people of a different race to be present all over Europe. There once was this empire called Rome, that encompassed a very large area, and enabled people to travel around and settle in areas.
I had been looking forward to this film since March of 2020, and it completely delivered. I hope we get more films like this, rather than the barrage of big dumb action and comic book films. I can’t wait to go see this film again!
Gawain agrees to the Christmas game proposed by the Green Knight, so he can be knighted himself. The game is the same as the poem, a knight gives a blow to the Green Knight, and a year from that date, the knight will visit the Green Chapel so he can return the favor.
The year passes, and Gawain sets out on his quest. Mother gives him the gift of a green sash, that will protect him as he faces the journey and the Green Knight. He sets off on his trippy journey, encountering a scavenger (Barry Keoghan) along the way and is quickly delayed in his quest and left for dead, losing his green sash. After freeing himself, he sets out on his allegory-filled quest again, encountering St. Winifred (Erin Kellyman), giants, and is led by a fox to a castle near the Green Chapel.
The castle is where the film gets back on track with the poem. The Lord (Joel Egerton) shows kindness and hospitality, while his wife (Alicia Vikander), takes the role as temptress. Alicia Vikander plays both the Lady, and the prostitute that Gawain is in love with back home. It’s understandably confusing for Gawain. The same deal is struck between the Lord and Gawain, while the Lord is away on the hunt, he will give Gawain everything he catches, while Gawain promises to give the Lord anything he receives at the castle. Gawain does not end up keeping the agreement as he’s seduced by the Lady and gets the green sash back. He escapes the castle and goes to the Green Chapel to finish the Christmas game. The end was very interesting, would Gawain choose to be courageous and maintain his honor, accepting death? Or would he be a coward, running away to be knighted, then subsequently become King? The ending was scary good.
My first thought after the film ended was that we finally got a film that did an Arthurian legend justice. I happened to be really into Arthuriana, so this film was such a treat. Though, I am left with some questions. I’m not sure which sister Mother was supposed to be. Was Mother Morgaine or Morgause? I assume it was Morgause, but Mother was a little more witchy, so maybe Morgaine? I also don’t know if in the film, the Green Knight was the Lord. The characters were played by two different actors, but the Lord is definitely supposed to be the Green Knight.
Another thing I did like is that I don’t believe they ever called the King by his name, Arthur. This was a smart move, as the story was centralized on Sir Gawain, and not about Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table.
The one sore thumb for me was Alicia Vikander. Her accent when she was the prostitute, Essel, was horrid. I also think that character wasn’t really needed at all because she was just annoying. The whole brothel situation itself was kind of lame because Gawain was supposed to be pure and innocent. The innocence being lost at the Castle was a major part of the poem.
Dev Patel was excellent as Gawain; I was entranced by him, and he kept my attention the entire film. I know there were grumblings about his casting, but seriously, this is a fantasy story. It also is not impossible for people of a different race to be present all over Europe. There once was this empire called Rome, that encompassed a very large area, and enabled people to travel around and settle in areas.
I had been looking forward to this film since March of 2020, and it completely delivered. I hope we get more films like this, rather than the barrage of big dumb action and comic book films. I can’t wait to go see this film again!
Ghost Town: Mystery Match Game
Games and Stickers
App
Epic journey leads you in abandoned township to help the cute local characters. Exciting plot about...
Falling Short: The Coming Retirement Crisis and What to Do About it
Charles D. Ellis, Alicia H. Munnell and Andrew D. Eschtruth
Book
The United States faces a serious retirement challenge. Many of today's workers will lack the...