Search

Search only in certain items:

Mary Poppins (1964)
Mary Poppins (1964)
1964 | Classics, Comedy, Family
Practically Perfect In Every Way
After watching MARY POPPINS RETURNS, the BankofMarquis was itching to check out the original 1964 Julie Andrews/Dick Van Dyke/Walt Disney production of MARY POPPINS to see if it holds up as well as my memory has held it up. I was a little nervous when I put the DVD in the player and hit go.

And I shouldn't have worried, for MARY POPPINS is...pardon the expression..."Practically Perfect in Every Way".

Based on the series of books by P.L. Travers and set right around 1900, the film tells the tale of the London Banks' Family - Mr., Mrs., Jane and Michael - who need a new nanny. Both parents are too busy to spend time with their children - he with his job at the Bank (get it - Mr. Banks works at a Bank) and her involvement in the Women's Suffragette movement. Into their lives flies (quite literally) Mary Poppins - a nanny with magical qualities who, along with her friend and cohort Bert, casts a spell on the children - and the Banks' family.

Julie Andrews earned the Oscar for Best Actress for her feature film debut - and it is richly deserved. Her Poppins is stern, smart, brassy and loving - oh...and a marvelous singer and dancer. Just as strong as Andrews is Dick Van Dyke as Bert (though some will quibble with his Cockney accent). I say...don't worry about his accent and watch the wonderful comedic timing, dancing and joi de vivre that Van Dyke brings to this film. He is the "secret sauce" that makes this work. Julie would not be as good - nor would this film be as interesting - without Bert by her side.

EVERY major player shines in this film from David Tomlinson's befuddled, straight-laced British Gentleman Mr. Banks to Glynnis Johns as the enthusiastic supporter of Votes for Women, Mrs. Banks, to the children - Karen Dotrice and Matthew Garber. Special notice should be made to Ed Wynn who's one scene/song/cameo as Uncle Albert - the "I Love To Laugh" scene - is pure gold.

Even the smaller, supporting roles are stellar. Reta Shaw and Hermione Baddely as the "domestics", Arthur Treacher (yes - he, of FISH AND CHIPS fame) as the Constable and Reginald Owen (Scrooge in the 1930's version of A CHRISTMAS CAROL) as Admiral Boom are all fun to watch and match the energy and timing of the leads in their limited screen time.

And...the music...Oh, the Music! Written by Richard M and Robert B Sherman - these songs are classic. Starting with the Oscar Winner for Best Song - Chim Chim Cheree and continuing through Feed The Birds, I Love To Laugh, Jolly Holiday and Let's Go Fly A Kite - ALL the songs are magical and lend a hand to the story - they serve a purpose and are not just a distraction. This film is worth watching just for the rooftop Step-In-Time song and dance number alone.

But the thing that makes this film go is the story - the characters, settings, costumes, songs and dances - are all in service to a touching, sentimental (but not cloying) simple story of a family coming together. It is charming in it's simplicity and leaves everyone with a heart full of joy.

Surprisingly to a modern audience, the special effects (especially the "Live Action and Animation" sequence) holds up really, really well. It is amazing to me how strong these effects are - even over 50 years later.

This is a wonderful, heartfelt family film that deserves a re-watch if you haven't seen it in awhile.

Letter Grade A+

10 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
  
TT
6
6.0 (1 Ratings)
Book Rating
<i>Many thanks to the author Chrys Cymri for providing me with a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review</i>

Original review can be found on my blog Raptureinbooks <a href="http://wp.me/p5y0lX-1Js">here</a href>

I was kindly offered this book by the author in exchange for an honest review and my initial impressions were "yeah this sounds like my kinda thing. Here there be dragons" ya know? Only to get more fully immersed in the book and find that I was a touch disappointed.

<i>The Temptation of Dragons</i> follows Reverend Penny White as she becomes the Vicar General of an alternate world called Lloegyr - please note that there is a heavy Welsh influence in this book coupled with an enormous religious influence - where dragons, unicorns, gryphons and more reside and coexist in relative peace.

The book starts with Penny White coming home slightly intoxicated and thinking she's going mad when she comes across a dying dragon. In true priestly form Penny gets out of her car and performs the last rites of absolution to what turns out to be a real dragon!

From that moment on Penny's life changes in so many ways - dragons exist, unicorns are real, snail sharks get drunk and gryphons are eating her garden birds. Penny is soon tasked to become the Vicar General to the citizens of Lloegyr and that includes all manner of supernatural beasties. Though expected as the main character is a priest, I didn't expect there to be such a heavy religious influence all throughout with literal verses from the Bible quoted on a regular.

Please understand that this is <b>not</b> anything against the book or against the writer and is merely my thoughts on what I considered an overly religious-toned story set in the wrong time period and the wrong world. I honestly found that the hardest part of reading this book but there were parts that I enjoyed for example: Penny White has what amounts to an obsession with sci-fi/fantasy and occult TV and movies, a lot of which were quite obscure for me (not really a TV and movie person *gasp*) I didn't get several of the references - particularly the Doctor Who ones.

Out of all of the characters my favourite had to be Moriarty - shortened to Morey for some reason - a 47-year-old gryphon with no filter. My favourite quote was from Penny about Morey:
<blockquote>"You've sent me a blue tit murdering creationist with sarcasm management issues."

"Correction. Today he's killing a starling."</blockquote>

The sarcasm and humour was rife throughout this book which was brilliant and gave it a nice light undertone to the ultimate seriousness of the book as a whole.

There was one character I didn't like and that was her brother James- I'm not 100% sure why but something about him rubbed me the wrong way. He's a free loading, insensitive toss pot and possibly a pod person.

However, despite my dislike of the heavy religious overtone and of James, I really, really liked <i>how</i> Chrys wrote the dragons and unicorns and all the other supernatural creatures and they had enough of a description without giving away too much important information; but also, on the flip side, there were away lot of unanswered questions such as how <i>exactly</i> does a unicorn use a telephone?

In all, it was a well written book with an interesting concept and some good characters and prose, dialogue was perfectly modern for Penny and a touch Olde World for a lot of the Lloegyr residents.
  
Shazam! (2019)
Shazam! (2019)
2019 | Action, Sci-Fi
Zachary Levi as Billy Batson/Shazam The young cast The family dynamic The humour (0 more)
Mark Strong's weak baddie (0 more)
"i'd like to purchase some of your finest beer please"
Shout "Shazam!" into the sky and you're struck by a bolt of lightning from the heavens; blessed with the wisdom of Solomon, the strength of Hercules, the stamina of Atlas, the power of Zeus, the courage of Achilles and the speed of Mercury. Instantly elevated from whatever you were into your peak self; reborn with a crack of thunder, a flash of light and a cloud of smoke. It's a wonderfully novel and simple idea for a comic book character. Something that allows for a spectacular hero moment right before each conflict or feat; an epic bit of imagery to light up the night sky and electrify the frame. This transformation also perfectly captures the spirit of both this film and it's hero; a belief in the idea that even the most forgotten, marginalized and seemingly powerless person can change the world.

Shazam! distinguishes itself as DC's first true crack at a comedy; also it's lightest and most modest effort yet. There's a really nice commitment to the lofty, somewhat ridiculously mythological source material here. There's little liberty taken with Shazam's campy world of wizards, demons and magic; the attitude towards these elements can best be described as self-aware without being self-conscious. The jokes almost all land and there's charm oozing out of every frame. Loads of heart, tons of humor and a true fidelity to childhood joy make this such a uniquely enjoyable flick; and an impressively confident approach to a hero that soars due to it's big personality and earnest attitude.

Our hero's journey here boils down to a kid learning to care about a world that has never bothered to care about him. Abandoned as a child and shuttled through the foster system; the explanation and depiction of Billy Batson's unenviable situation is irreverent and laced with sarcasm, true to how teens often confront traumas that imply vulnerability. The film allows these kids to be kids; meaning they're impulsive and ill-equipped for the situation they're in; and often crude and frustratingly ignorant to a seemingly obvious truth. The premise lends itself to a close look at responsibility and purpose; basically a feature length look at a lost kid reclaiming his identity and finding a family. The point at which Billy truly becomes a hero with something to fight for is powerful; a simple but big-hearted affirmation of the importance of connection and love, especially to a kid who's never allowed himself to know either.

Superhero stories can impart lessons in a variety of ways. Both on the page and on the screen; there's a wide array of films that all excel in their own specific way; shaping themselves in the image of their hero, and what he/she means to readers around the world. Shazam! distinguishes itself spectacularly as a film about what constitutes a family, and how that family reflects who we are. There's a powerful yearning in Billy for a connection; someone or something to fight for. A desperate desire for love and support; to feel like a part of something in some way. There's a meaningful, deeply human core to that concept; something universal and immediately affecting. Shazam! understands this from the start; setting aside the punchsplosians and skybeams for a moment, to remind us that sometimes a kid looking for his mom can be as compelling than the threat of planetary destruction. So bring on Joker, Birds of Prey, Wonder Woman 1984 and whatever else DC has in it's chaotic, ever-changing slate of planned superhero flicks; they're on a roll right now.
  
Flatliners (2017)
Flatliners (2017)
2017 | Drama, Horror, Sci-Fi
The undiscovered country… which they shouldn’t have returned to.
The movies have depicted the hereafter in varied ways over the years. From the bleached white warehouses of Powell and Pressburger’s “A Matter of Life and Death” in 1946 and Warren Beatty’s “Heaven Can Wait” in 1978 to – for me – the peak of the game: Vincent Ward’s mawkish but gorgeously rendered oil-paint version of heaven in 1998’s “What Dreams May Come”. Joel Schmacher’s 1990’s “Flatliners” saw a set of “brat pack” movie names of the day (including Kevin Bacon, Julia Roberts, William Baldwin and Kiefer Sutherland) as experimenting trainee doctors, cheating death to experience the afterlife and getting more than they bargained for. The depictions of the afterlife were unmemorable: in that I don’t remember them much! (I think there was some sort of spooky tree involved, but that’s about it!)

But the concept was sufficiently enticing – who isn’t a little bit intrigued by the question of “what’s beyond”? – that Cross Creek Pictures thought it worthy of dusting off and giving it another outing in pursuit of dirty lucre. But unfortunately this offering adds little to the property’s reputation.

In this version, the lead role is headed up by Ellen Page (“Inception”) who is a great actress… too good for this stuff. Also in that category is Diego Luna, who really made an impact in “Rogue One” but here has little to work with in terms of backstory. The remaining three doctors – Nina Dobrev as “the sexy one”; James Norton (“War and Peace”) as “the posh boy” and Kiersey Clemons as the “cute but repressed one”, all have even less backstory and struggle to make a great impact.

Still struggling to get the high score on Angry Birds: from left to right Ray (Diego Luna), Sophia (Kiersey Clemons), Marlo (Nina Dobrev), Courtney (Ellen Page) and Jamie (James Norton).
Also putting in an appearance, as the one link from the original film, is Kiefer Sutherland as a senior member of the teaching staff. But he’s not playing the same character (that WOULD have been a bloody miracle!) and although Sutherland adds gravitas he really is given criminally little to do. What was director Niels Arden Oplev (“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) thinking?

In terms of the story, it’s pretty much a re-hash of Peter Filardi’s original, with Ben Ripley (“Source Code”) adding a few minor tweaks to the screenplay to update it for the current generation. But I will levy the same criticism of this film as I levied at the recent Stephen King adaptation of “It”: for horror to work well it need to obey some decent ‘rules of physics’ and although most of the scenes work (since a lot of the “action” is sensibly based inside the character’s heads) there are the occasional linkages to the ‘real world’ that generate a “WTF???” response. A seemingly indestructible Mini car (which is also clearly untraceable by the police!) and a knife incident at the dockside are two cases in point.

Is there anything good to say about this film? Well, there are certainly a few tense moments that make the hairs on your neck at least start to stand to attention. But these are few and far between, amongst a sea of movie ‘meh’. It’s certainly not going to be the worst film I see this year, since at least I wasn’t completely bored for the two hours. But I won’t remember this one in a few weeks. As a summary in the form of a “Black Adder” quote, it’s all a bit like a broken pencil….. pointless.
  
40x40

Sarah (7798 KP) created a post in Bookworms

Apr 3, 2018  
A couple of years ago Goodreads posted a list of their 100 Books to Read in a Lifetime, as voted by users. We may have moved on a little, but personally I think this list still stands.

What do you think? How many have you read?


1. To Kill a Mockingbird - Harper Lee
2. Pride and Prejudice - Jane Austen
3. The Diary of Anne Frank - Anne Frank
4. 1984 - George Orwell
5. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone - JK Rowling
6. The Lord of the Rings - JRR Tolkien
7. The Great Gatsby- F Scott Fitzgerald
8. Charlotte's Web - EB White
9. The Hobbit- JRR Tolkien
10. Little Women - Louisa May Alcott
11. Fahrenheit 451 - Ray Bradbury
12. Jane Eyre- Jane Austen
13. Animal Farm - George Orwell
14. Gone with the Wind - Margaret Mitchell
15. The Catcher in the Rye - JD Salinger
16. The Book Thief - Markus Zusak
17. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn - Mark Twain
18. The Hunger Games - Suzanne Collins
19. The Help - Kathryn Stockett
20. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe - CS Lewis
21. The Grapes of Wrath - John Steinbeck
22. The Lord of the Flies - William Golding
23. The Kite Runner - Khaled Hosseini
24. Night - Elie Wiesel
25. Hamlet - William Shakespeare
26. A Wrinkle in Time - Madeleine L'Engle
27. Of Mice and Men - John Steinbeck
28. A Tale of Two Cities - Charles Dickens
29. Romeo and Juliet - William Shakespeare
30. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams
31. The Secret Garden - Frances Hodgson Burnett
32. A Christmas Carol - Charles Dickens
33. The Little Prince - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
34. Brave New World - Aldous Huxley
35. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - JK Rowling
36. The Giver - Lois Lowry
37. The Handmaid's Tale - Margaret Atwood
38. Where the Sidewalk Ends - Shel Silverstein
39. Wuthering Heights - Emily Bronte
40. The Fault in Our Stars - John Green
41. Anne of Green Gables - LM Montgomery
42. The Adventures of Tom Sawyer - Mark Twain
43. Macbeth - William Shakespeare
44. The Girl with a Dragon Tattoo - Stieg Larsson
45. Frankenstein - Mary Shelley
46. The Holy Bible: King James version
47. The Color Purple - Alice Walker
48. The Count of Monte Cristo - Alexandre Dumas
49. A Tree Grows in Brooklyn - Betty Smith
50. East of Eden - John Steinbeck
51. Alice in Wonderland - Lewis Carroll
52. In Cold Blood - Truman Capote
53. Catch-22 - Joseph Heller
54. The Stand - Stephen King
55. Outlander - Diana Gabaldon
56. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - JK Rowling
57. Enders Game - Orson Scott Card
58. Anna Karenina - Leo Tolstoy
59. Watership Down - Richard Adams
60. Memoirs of a Geisha - Arthur Golden
61. Rebecca - Daphne du Maurier
62. A Game of Thrones - George RR Martin
63. Great Expectations - Charles Dickens
64. The Old Man and the Sea - Ernest Hemingway
65. The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes - Arthur Conan Doyle
66. Les Miserables - Victor Hugo
67. Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince - JK Rowling
68. Life of Pi - Yann Martel
69. The Scarlet Letter - Nathaniel Hawthorne
70. Celebrating Silence: Excerpts from Five Years of Weekly Knowledge - Sri Sri Ravi Shankar
71. The Chronicles of Narnia - CS Lewis
72. The Pillars of the Earth - Ken Follett
73. Catching Fire - Suzanne Collins
74. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - Roald Dahl
75. Dracula - Bram Stoker
76. The Princess Bride - William Goldman
77. Water for Elephants - Sara Gruen
78. The Raven - Edgar Allan Poe
79. The Secret Life of Bees - Sue Monk Kidd
80. The Poisonwood Bible - Barbara Kingsolver
81. One Hundred Years of Solitude - Gabriel Garcia Marquez
82. The Time Travelers Wife - Audrey Niffenegger
83. The Odyssey - Homer
84. The Good Earth - Pearl S Buck
85. Mockingjay - Suzanne Collins
86. And Then There Were None - Agatha Christie
87. The Thorn Birds - Colleen McCullough
88. A Prayer for Owen Meany - John Irving
89. The Glass Castle - Jeanette Walls
90. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks - Rebecca Skloot
91. Crime and Punishment - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
92. The Road - Cormac McCarthy
93. The Things They Carried - Tim O'Brien
94. Siddhartha - Hermann Hesse
95. Slaughterhouse-Five - Kurt Vonnegut
96. Beloved - Toni Morrison
97. Cutting for Stone - Abraham Verghese
98. The Phantom Tollbooth - Norton Juster
99. The Brothers Karamazov - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
100. The Story of My Life - Helen Keller
  
Show all 14 comments.
40x40

Angelicalynnn (21 KP) Jul 6, 2018

I’ve read 30 not to bad but still plenty I would love to read!

40x40

iamsara (130 KP) Jul 19, 2018

14 ?

Ralph Breaks the Internet: Wreck-It Ralph 2 (2018)
Ralph Breaks the Internet: Wreck-It Ralph 2 (2018)
2018 | Adventure, Animation, Comedy
Imaginative portrayal of the internet (2 more)
Ralph and Vanellope
Good positive messages throughout
Stumbles and drags a bit towards the end (0 more)
Enjoyable Sequel
I cannot believe it's been 6 years since we last saw Ralph and Vanellope! And when we join them again, they're still in the same arcade, right where we left them. By day carrying out their respective gaming duties, by night socialising with the other arcade characters and drinking together in Tappers bar. They seem happy and content with life, although Vanellope is beginning to feel that there's more to life than the same old Sugar Rush races all day every day.

In an attempt to help his friend and spice things up for her, Ralph decides to smash a new race course through the Sugar Rush landscape. But things don't go quite according to plan, resulting in a broken steering wheel on the arcade machine. Unfortunately, the company responsible for making that machine is no longer in business so parts for it aren't readily available, or too expensive to buy online, so the plug gets pulled on the machine. With the future of the game in jeopardy, and with the Sugar Rush inhabitants having to find new homes with the other arcade residents, Ralph and Vanellope decide to try and help. The arcade has just had a Wi-fi router plugged in, and they overheard one of the kids in the arcade earlier talking about the steering wheel being available online on some site called eBoy? So, they decide to go investigate this thing called the internet.

I've seen a few reviews that draw comparisons to this movie and with 'Ready Player One' from earlier this year. As we entered the Oasis of Ready Player One, we were treated to an amazing visual onslaught of wonderful imagery and instantly recognisable characters. And, as Ralph and Vanellope enter the internet, it's a similarly enjoyable experience. Recognisable brands and websites are everywhere you look, either as buildings or with their concepts imaginatively represented in some form. Twitter birds fly around, characters force suspicious looking spam adverts in your face while busy web traffic is everywhere, constantly being directed to its next destination. Ralph and Vanellope eventually find their way to eBay, where the steering wheel they need is currently being auctioned, but they don't really understand the bidding process and end up winning it for more money than they can possibly pay. They then set about finding a way to get rich quick so that they can pay for the wheel and get it shipped to the arcade before the game gets removed for scrap. Their journey takes them to an online game called 'Slaughter Race', a violent racing game featuring skilled racer Shank (voiced by Gal Gadot), a world which immediately excites racing fiend Vanellope, who feels right at home.

It's great to see the characters of Ralph and Vanellope back on our screens. Ralph is still very funny and Vanellope is still extremely cute! There are also a large number of sections of the movie which work very well and are extremely enjoyable. Aside from the initial introduction to the internet, and the whole Slaughter Race segment, probably the most enjoyable portion is the visit to Disney and the Disney princesses, which received such a big reaction when featured in the various trailers for the movie. And we don't just get the princesses either, we also get to see Marvel and Star Wars characters too! Another chance to scour the screen to try and spot background characters, and a reminder that Disney is in fact slowly taking over the world!

Towards the end of the movie I felt that things weren't so interesting and enjoyable, with a lengthy segment involving a virus and how it spreads and manifests itself, threatening the whole internet. But that's a minor negative from me in what is overall a hugely enjoyable sequel. There are also a number of very strong messages throughout, from the Disney princesses and the way they act, to the way that internet negativity is portrayed. I'm not sure of the longevity of this movie though - after all, at the speed the internet develops these days, how many of the sites or concepts featured are going to still be around or even relevant in another 6 years time?
  
Alien (1979)
Alien (1979)
1979 | Horror, Sci-Fi
This classic holds up very, very well more than 40 years later
I convinced my cynical 19 year old to watch an "ancient" film (her phrase) - so I was careful with my choice. I know she likes horror, so thought I would try to see if she could be scared the old fashioned way and pulled the 1979 Sci-Fi/Horror classic ALIEN off the shelves to show her.

It scared the crap outta her.

Directed by Ridley Scott (more on him later) Alien tells the tale of a working-class deep space vehicle, returning home with a full cargo when they intercept a distress call at a distant, non-descript planet, they go to investigate and...

As told by Ridley Scott, based on a script and story by Dan O'Bannon, Alien is a masterwork in suspense and mood. Scott takes his time telling this story, setting up the feel and atmosphere, showing a gritty, working-man's vessel (and not a sleek silver and chrome shiny ship) where the people inside the craft are not heroes, but working class stiff's just trying to make a buck.

What surprised me this time around seeing this film is how deliberate (some would say slow) that the pacing of this film is - but, darn it all, if it doesn't work. The tension slowly builds so when violence/action happens it explodes and seems all the bigger due to the fact that it is coming out of silence.

The cast - a group of relative unknowns at the time - is stellar. In the DVD commentary, Director Scott said he spent quite a bit of time casting this film to ensure he had the right mix - and his work shows on screen. The 7 actors in this film work well together - and each one of them brings a real character to the screen that is interesting to watch.

Tom Skerrit (the film version of M*A*S*H) as laconic, laid back Captain Dallas and Yaphet Kotto (the villain in the James Bond flick LIVE AND LET DIE) as gruff, looking-for-a-buck mechanic Parker were the most well known of the 7 at the time of the release of the film - and they do bring some star power to the proceedings, but are met, evenly, by others like former child star Veronica Cartwright (Alfred Hitchcock's THE BIRDS), veteran character Actor Harry Dean Stanton ( THE ROSE) and John Hurt (THE ELEPHANT MAN). All 3 bring interesting characters - and faces - to the proceedings.

But...for me 2 the standouts in this cast is IAN HOLM (TIME BANDITS) as Science Officer Ash - a character with some "quirks" (to put it mildly) and, of course Sigourney Weaver (GHOSTBUSTERS) in her star making role as 3rd officer Ripley. I don't want to spoil anything in this film, but Weaver's Ripley is the type of strong female character - fighting the typical, chauvinistic male hierarchy - that was heretofore unknown/rarely seen in film and is the prototype of these types of characters to this day. Weaver's performance and the writing and direction of this character is that strong/groundbreaking that it continues to influence writing and filmmaking all these years later.

The 8th character in this film is the look and feel of the ship - the Nostromo - and the look and feel of the titular Alien character as brought to life in an Oscar winning effort in Visual Effects for the team of H.R. Giger, Carlo Rambaldi, Brian Johnson, Nick Allder and Dennis Ayling (based on drawings by Giger). This is truly remarkable, bravura and groundbreaking design and filmmaking - one that holds up very well more than 40 years later - made all the more astounding when you realize that these are all practical effects (CGI had not be invented yet) and the filmmakers had to rely on puppetry, editing, performance and what you don't see (but your mind thinks you do) to fill in the gaps.

It all works tremendously well - if you haven't seen this in awhile, do yourself a favor and watch it again. If you have never seen it, well...you are in for a treat.

Letter Grade: A+

10 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
  
40x40

Brian Eno recommended Early Works by Steve Reich in Music (curated)

 
Early Works by Steve Reich
Early Works by Steve Reich
(0 Ratings)
Album Favorite

"I could easily talk for several hours just about this. It was particularly this piece called 'It's Gonna Rain' that I heard with my friend Peter Schmidt, the painter. I'd met Peter while I was at art college and he was a very, very distinctive and unusual character. He was a German Jew who'd come over to England in the '30s and was a very good poker player because it was impossible to know what he was thinking. He was a very inscrutable person. Most people found it very hard to be with him as you'd say something to him and he'd just look at you. But I liked him a lot and we got on very well, and it turned out we'd been thinking about a lot of similar things. One of the things we used to do was sit around at his place in Stockwell and explore new music. Generally it was he who would play things to me and one day he said, ""Have you heard this?"" and my life changed. Reich recorded this in '65, so that's 51 years old and fucking hell, what have we been doing for half a century? The first thing that happens when you're listening to that is that the repetitive element of it gradually makes you start to lose focus of the pieces that keep repeating. You start hearing the little differences. It's a little bit like the way a frog's eye works. It doesn't scan like ours do, it stays fixed on a scene and very quickly the rods and cones get saturated with everything that doesn't move. So as soon as something does move, like a fly, that's the only thing that the frog sees. I think the ears behave like that when they're presented with something highly repetitive like this. Your ears quickly saturate or habituate with the common stuff and they start to pick up details. I remember the first time I heard 'It's Gonna Rain', I started to zone in on the pigeons, because this was out in the street, it was a recording of a street preacher so you can hear cars and horns and then you start to hear these birds but only after a while, after the other stuff has cleared out of your consciousness. That's amazing because what was making the music was my brain and that was the first time I'd realised that, as a composer, you could co-opt a listener's brain. So suddenly, wow, that's another 100 per cent of the universe opening up. When you put something out into the world that is kind of incomplete and it takes your consciousness and the errors of your perceptual mechanism to actually make it into something, that totally changed my idea of what music could be. The actual amount of material used is tiny, the loop of ""it's gonna rain"" is not even a second, and that's the only element used in that section. You think, bloody hell, that's economy, and I've always loved economy. At the time I first heard this we were in a period of maximum indulgence in pop music. Sixteen-track recorders had just appeared so suddenly so many people were just putting so much shit onto everything just because you could. Every spice in the cupboard. Suddenly I heard this and it was so stark and effective. The other thing about it is that within it is a mechanism that I've subsequently used a lot, which is the idea of having things running out of sync with each other. Again, your whole experience of music until then had been to do with synchronisation. Everything sticks together and then at this point everything changes together. What happens in this piece is that you get the same cycle but running so that on each repetition they're in a slightly different place in relation to each other. So you have an automatic generator of variety and I use that on so much of my work. That became my go-to technique for making something interesting straight away."

Source
  
Zack Snyder&#039;s Justice League (2021)
Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021)
2021 | Action, Adventure, Fantasy
Contains spoilers, click to show
Zack Snynder's Justice League is the original cut of the Justice League film that was released in 2017 which was started by by Snyder and re written / cut by Josh Whedon, cutting the film from Snyders 4 hour, R/15 rated vison to a 1.30 pg/12 rated version. The film was meant to be the big connecting point for the DC equivalent version of the MCU after following on from 'Man of Steel' and Batman vs Superman' but the Whedon cut was met with a lot of criticism as fans felt that it didn't give what was promised and so the DCCU seemed to stall, or go in a different direction with 'Birds of Prey'. We don't know if, with the release of the Snyder, the DCCU will be restarted.

Zack Snyder's Justice League follows the same basic story of the Whedon cut, after the events of 'Batman vs Superman', Batman begins to form a super hero team to be ready for the invasion Lex Luthor warned of.
The film is of a similar dark tone as the two previous films, with some humour added by Ezra Miller's Flash, and adds more back story to both the flash and Cyborg as well as more information about the villains, Steppenwolf and Darkseid.
The biggest problems of the Snyder cut is the 4 hour run time and I wonder if that would have been cut if; 1) it had been originally released without Josh Whedon's input and 2) if marvel hadn't already released the 3 hour long Avengers end game.
Any other problem I have with Justice League are minor, I'm still not sure if DC have handled the resurrection of Superman right but that's based off what they did in the comics and Snyder did... well I'll get to that in a bit.
The inclusion of Martian Manhunter was good but his first appearance in the film was a bit odd.
The last main problem I had were Stepenwolf's eye's, part way through the film his eyes seem to get too big for his face, almost giving him a cute, Anime girl look. At least until they go blue.

Zack Snyder's Justice league did a lot of things right, the inclusion on Darkseid is the big one as it makes Steppenwolf's motivation more believable and adds to the history of the DCU earth, not to mention introducing the Green Lanterns (with out CGI costumes).
Now back to Superman, I've already said that DC may have missed a trick with his resurrection but Snyder left him in his black outfit (I'm sure you se him back in his original outfit, in the present in the Whedon cut ) and anyone familiar with the 'Reign of the Superman' Comics/animated film know that the Black costumed superman is in fact the Eradicator so, depending on what DC have/had planned in Superman's future they could be planning something else, especially now the Green lanterns have been introduced .
Because of the longer runtime the new characters did seem more filled out which helped with the overall motivation and flow of the film.
Like the previous two films (I'm not counting suicide squad because it's only linked by the end scene) Justice league is quite slow paced and dark, taking time to build up to the action but the narrative does fit the pace and doesn't let it feel rushed or leave any loose ends. In fact the only part that almost felt like something was missing was when Flash repapered after breaking the speed of light however that may be because I've read a few comics and know that something normally happens when he does that.

I do hope that DCCU does continue from Zack Snyder's Justice league, if only to find out what they are planning with the whole 'nightmare future/Lois is the key' storyline they started in 'Batman vs Superman' and continued here.

Even if you have seen the Whedon cut and if you can find the time I would recommend watching the Snyder cut as there is a lot more to the film even though there are a few scenes from the Whedon cut missing and the Snyder cut does pull on a lot more law from the comics that was only hinted at in the shorter version. (I still find hard to believe they left Darkseid out of the Whedon cut considering the story they were trying to tell.)
  
Guns Akimbo (2019)
Guns Akimbo (2019)
2019 | Action, Comedy
When I first heard about Guns Akimbo I was very interested in seeing it, when I next heard about it... well, it wasn't exactly a happy internet moment. Despite the actions of one person though you shouldn't write off something that so many people worked on, that meant I was still keen.

Miles likes to think of himself as a bit of an online warrior, really he's just trolling the trolls... and he's just annoyed the wrong people. Skizm are making a name for themselves in real-life gaming experiences, you can watch online as people battle to the death, and Miles' transgression means he's their next competitor.

The idea isn't a new one, there's Gamer and Nerve (I haven't seen the latter but it was mentioned to me), I personally get a few vibes from The Condemned too, but despite all of that it still feels like it has a fun twist to it.

Miles is a "mild mannered" nerd who gets thrown into the violent world of Skizm, well outside his comfort zone he's now tasked with killing their current champion before she kills him. There's shouldn't really be much of a contest because even with guns surgically attached to his hands he's still only a mild threat to Nix. In the real world an ill-matched pairing probably wouldn't work but with the extra story and some added movie magic in the form of dumb luck for Miles and it means we get an underdog battle that everyone enjoys.

The contest runs rampant through the streets and we mainly follow Miles on his journey with the occasional jump to fill in story. It sticks well to video game imagery and principles, I particularly liked the addition of health/1-up sound effects. Overall the filming of it is well presented and engaging with combat scenes changing pace for dramatic effect and cutting between angles to give you something to react to. There are a lot of Dutch angles used, which makes sense considering how much concussion and drugs are flying around. My only quibble with this would probably be that there seems to be every possible camera technique and angle used in the film, that isn't necessarily a bad thing, but at times it feels a bit much.

Daniel Radcliffe is in the main role of Miles, and this is more of a personal drawback for me because I'm never entirely convinced he can act... but he is very amusing in this. In the beginning his inner nerd is on point when faced with Nix for the first time and the pair have a good, if slightly bizarre, rapport. I can deal with the fact that Miles has a lot of dumb luck, but at one point in the film he suddenly develops skills out of nowhere and that one annoyed me even though it made for a great scene.

As I said, the chemistry between Miles and Nix is very entertaining and Samara Weaving is a solid choice in casting. Nix is the baddie that you can't really hate and with her dark humour and the back story they weave in she's probably my favourite character. There were two things that leapt out at me, the Ready Or Note laugh and the Harley Quinn/Birds Of Prey drug snorting... now, BoP and Guns Akimbo must have been filmed at similar times so I can't see how it could have been copied but there's a moment that makes me instantly think of BoP, and with Weaving always momentarily confusing my brain when I see her it threw me for a loop.

There's a really well chosen group of songs throughout and they fit well with the tone of the film and the levels of energy needed... but as with everything in this review there's a little thing to pick at, and again, it's only tiny but it bugged me. One of the songs is used twice... technically nothing wrong with that, but I noticed it and it mildly annoyed me.


We've got two great leads who work well together and lots of hidden pop culture references that really help the film along. There's potential for the ultra violent moments to become a bit too much but with the effects, humour and editing I think it stops it from becoming anything too graphic. Guns Akimbo was pretty entertaining throughout and it's definitely one I can see myself rewatching.

Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/05/guns-akimbo-movie-review.html